analysing a systematic literature review

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Korean J Anesthesiol
• v.71(2); 2018 Apr

Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis

1 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea

2 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses present results by combining and analyzing data from different studies conducted on similar research topics. In recent years, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been actively performed in various fields including anesthesiology. These research methods are powerful tools that can overcome the difficulties in performing large-scale randomized controlled trials. However, the inclusion of studies with any biases or improperly assessed quality of evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses could yield misleading results. Therefore, various guidelines have been suggested for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses to help standardize them and improve their quality. Nonetheless, accepting the conclusions of many studies without understanding the meta-analysis can be dangerous. Therefore, this article provides an easy introduction to clinicians on performing and understanding meta-analyses.

Introduction

A systematic review collects all possible studies related to a given topic and design, and reviews and analyzes their results [ 1 ]. During the systematic review process, the quality of studies is evaluated, and a statistical meta-analysis of the study results is conducted on the basis of their quality. A meta-analysis is a valid, objective, and scientific method of analyzing and combining different results. Usually, in order to obtain more reliable results, a meta-analysis is mainly conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which have a high level of evidence [ 2 ] ( Fig. 1 ). Since 1999, various papers have presented guidelines for reporting meta-analyses of RCTs. Following the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUORUM) statement [ 3 ], and the appearance of registers such as Cochrane Library’s Methodology Register, a large number of systematic literature reviews have been registered. In 2009, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [ 4 ] was published, and it greatly helped standardize and improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses [ 5 ].

Levels of evidence.

In anesthesiology, the importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has been highlighted, and they provide diagnostic and therapeutic value to various areas, including not only perioperative management but also intensive care and outpatient anesthesia [6–13]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses include various topics, such as comparing various treatments of postoperative nausea and vomiting [ 14 , 15 ], comparing general anesthesia and regional anesthesia [ 16 – 18 ], comparing airway maintenance devices [ 8 , 19 ], comparing various methods of postoperative pain control (e.g., patient-controlled analgesia pumps, nerve block, or analgesics) [ 20 – 23 ], comparing the precision of various monitoring instruments [ 7 ], and meta-analysis of dose-response in various drugs [ 12 ].

Thus, literature reviews and meta-analyses are being conducted in diverse medical fields, and the aim of highlighting their importance is to help better extract accurate, good quality data from the flood of data being produced. However, a lack of understanding about systematic reviews and meta-analyses can lead to incorrect outcomes being derived from the review and analysis processes. If readers indiscriminately accept the results of the many meta-analyses that are published, incorrect data may be obtained. Therefore, in this review, we aim to describe the contents and methods used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in a way that is easy to understand for future authors and readers of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Study Planning

It is easy to confuse systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is an objective, reproducible method to find answers to a certain research question, by collecting all available studies related to that question and reviewing and analyzing their results. A meta-analysis differs from a systematic review in that it uses statistical methods on estimates from two or more different studies to form a pooled estimate [ 1 ]. Following a systematic review, if it is not possible to form a pooled estimate, it can be published as is without progressing to a meta-analysis; however, if it is possible to form a pooled estimate from the extracted data, a meta-analysis can be attempted. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses usually proceed according to the flowchart presented in Fig. 2 . We explain each of the stages below.

Flowchart illustrating a systematic review.

Formulating research questions

A systematic review attempts to gather all available empirical research by using clearly defined, systematic methods to obtain answers to a specific question. A meta-analysis is the statistical process of analyzing and combining results from several similar studies. Here, the definition of the word “similar” is not made clear, but when selecting a topic for the meta-analysis, it is essential to ensure that the different studies present data that can be combined. If the studies contain data on the same topic that can be combined, a meta-analysis can even be performed using data from only two studies. However, study selection via a systematic review is a precondition for performing a meta-analysis, and it is important to clearly define the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) parameters that are central to evidence-based research. In addition, selection of the research topic is based on logical evidence, and it is important to select a topic that is familiar to readers without clearly confirmed the evidence [ 24 ].

Protocols and registration

In systematic reviews, prior registration of a detailed research plan is very important. In order to make the research process transparent, primary/secondary outcomes and methods are set in advance, and in the event of changes to the method, other researchers and readers are informed when, how, and why. Many studies are registered with an organization like PROSPERO ( http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ), and the registration number is recorded when reporting the study, in order to share the protocol at the time of planning.

Defining inclusion and exclusion criteria

Information is included on the study design, patient characteristics, publication status (published or unpublished), language used, and research period. If there is a discrepancy between the number of patients included in the study and the number of patients included in the analysis, this needs to be clearly explained while describing the patient characteristics, to avoid confusing the reader.

Literature search and study selection

In order to secure proper basis for evidence-based research, it is essential to perform a broad search that includes as many studies as possible that meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Typically, the three bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) are used. In domestic studies, the Korean databases KoreaMed, KMBASE, and RISS4U may be included. Effort is required to identify not only published studies but also abstracts, ongoing studies, and studies awaiting publication. Among the studies retrieved in the search, the researchers remove duplicate studies, select studies that meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria based on the abstracts, and then make the final selection of studies based on their full text. In order to maintain transparency and objectivity throughout this process, study selection is conducted independently by at least two investigators. When there is a inconsistency in opinions, intervention is required via debate or by a third reviewer. The methods for this process also need to be planned in advance. It is essential to ensure the reproducibility of the literature selection process [ 25 ].

Quality of evidence

However, well planned the systematic review or meta-analysis is, if the quality of evidence in the studies is low, the quality of the meta-analysis decreases and incorrect results can be obtained [ 26 ]. Even when using randomized studies with a high quality of evidence, evaluating the quality of evidence precisely helps determine the strength of recommendations in the meta-analysis. One method of evaluating the quality of evidence in non-randomized studies is the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, provided by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute 1) . However, we are mostly focusing on meta-analyses that use randomized studies.

If the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system ( http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/ ) is used, the quality of evidence is evaluated on the basis of the study limitations, inaccuracies, incompleteness of outcome data, indirectness of evidence, and risk of publication bias, and this is used to determine the strength of recommendations [ 27 ]. As shown in Table 1 , the study limitations are evaluated using the “risk of bias” method proposed by Cochrane 2) . This method classifies bias in randomized studies as “low,” “high,” or “unclear” on the basis of the presence or absence of six processes (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding participants or investigators, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases) [ 28 ].

The Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool for Assessing the Risk of Bias [ 28 ]

Data extraction

Two different investigators extract data based on the objectives and form of the study; thereafter, the extracted data are reviewed. Since the size and format of each variable are different, the size and format of the outcomes are also different, and slight changes may be required when combining the data [ 29 ]. If there are differences in the size and format of the outcome variables that cause difficulties combining the data, such as the use of different evaluation instruments or different evaluation timepoints, the analysis may be limited to a systematic review. The investigators resolve differences of opinion by debate, and if they fail to reach a consensus, a third-reviewer is consulted.

Data Analysis

The aim of a meta-analysis is to derive a conclusion with increased power and accuracy than what could not be able to achieve in individual studies. Therefore, before analysis, it is crucial to evaluate the direction of effect, size of effect, homogeneity of effects among studies, and strength of evidence [ 30 ]. Thereafter, the data are reviewed qualitatively and quantitatively. If it is determined that the different research outcomes cannot be combined, all the results and characteristics of the individual studies are displayed in a table or in a descriptive form; this is referred to as a qualitative review. A meta-analysis is a quantitative review, in which the clinical effectiveness is evaluated by calculating the weighted pooled estimate for the interventions in at least two separate studies.

The pooled estimate is the outcome of the meta-analysis, and is typically explained using a forest plot ( Figs. 3 and ​ and4). 4 ). The black squares in the forest plot are the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals in each study. The area of the squares represents the weight reflected in the meta-analysis. The black diamond represents the OR and 95% confidence interval calculated across all the included studies. The bold vertical line represents a lack of therapeutic effect (OR = 1); if the confidence interval includes OR = 1, it means no significant difference was found between the treatment and control groups.

Forest plot analyzed by two different models using the same data. (A) Fixed-effect model. (B) Random-effect model. The figure depicts individual trials as filled squares with the relative sample size and the solid line as the 95% confidence interval of the difference. The diamond shape indicates the pooled estimate and uncertainty for the combined effect. The vertical line indicates the treatment group shows no effect (OR = 1). Moreover, if the confidence interval includes 1, then the result shows no evidence of difference between the treatment and control groups.

Forest plot representing homogeneous data.

Dichotomous variables and continuous variables

In data analysis, outcome variables can be considered broadly in terms of dichotomous variables and continuous variables. When combining data from continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) are used ( Table 2 ).

Summary of Meta-analysis Methods Available in RevMan [ 28 ]

The MD is the absolute difference in mean values between the groups, and the SMD is the mean difference between groups divided by the standard deviation. When results are presented in the same units, the MD can be used, but when results are presented in different units, the SMD should be used. When the MD is used, the combined units must be shown. A value of “0” for the MD or SMD indicates that the effects of the new treatment method and the existing treatment method are the same. A value lower than “0” means the new treatment method is less effective than the existing method, and a value greater than “0” means the new treatment is more effective than the existing method.

When combining data for dichotomous variables, the OR, risk ratio (RR), or risk difference (RD) can be used. The RR and RD can be used for RCTs, quasi-experimental studies, or cohort studies, and the OR can be used for other case-control studies or cross-sectional studies. However, because the OR is difficult to interpret, using the RR and RD, if possible, is recommended. If the outcome variable is a dichotomous variable, it can be presented as the number needed to treat (NNT), which is the minimum number of patients who need to be treated in the intervention group, compared to the control group, for a given event to occur in at least one patient. Based on Table 3 , in an RCT, if x is the probability of the event occurring in the control group and y is the probability of the event occurring in the intervention group, then x = c/(c + d), y = a/(a + b), and the absolute risk reduction (ARR) = x − y. NNT can be obtained as the reciprocal, 1/ARR.

Calculation of the Number Needed to Treat in the Dichotomous table

Fixed-effect models and random-effect models

In order to analyze effect size, two types of models can be used: a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model. A fixed-effect model assumes that the effect of treatment is the same, and that variation between results in different studies is due to random error. Thus, a fixed-effect model can be used when the studies are considered to have the same design and methodology, or when the variability in results within a study is small, and the variance is thought to be due to random error. Three common methods are used for weighted estimation in a fixed-effect model: 1) inverse variance-weighted estimation 3) , 2) Mantel-Haenszel estimation 4) , and 3) Peto estimation 5) .

A random-effect model assumes heterogeneity between the studies being combined, and these models are used when the studies are assumed different, even if a heterogeneity test does not show a significant result. Unlike a fixed-effect model, a random-effect model assumes that the size of the effect of treatment differs among studies. Thus, differences in variation among studies are thought to be due to not only random error but also between-study variability in results. Therefore, weight does not decrease greatly for studies with a small number of patients. Among methods for weighted estimation in a random-effect model, the DerSimonian and Laird method 6) is mostly used for dichotomous variables, as the simplest method, while inverse variance-weighted estimation is used for continuous variables, as with fixed-effect models. These four methods are all used in Review Manager software (The Cochrane Collaboration, UK), and are described in a study by Deeks et al. [ 31 ] ( Table 2 ). However, when the number of studies included in the analysis is less than 10, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method 7) can better reduce the risk of type 1 error than does the DerSimonian and Laird method [ 32 ].

Fig. 3 shows the results of analyzing outcome data using a fixed-effect model (A) and a random-effect model (B). As shown in Fig. 3 , while the results from large studies are weighted more heavily in the fixed-effect model, studies are given relatively similar weights irrespective of study size in the random-effect model. Although identical data were being analyzed, as shown in Fig. 3 , the significant result in the fixed-effect model was no longer significant in the random-effect model. One representative example of the small study effect in a random-effect model is the meta-analysis by Li et al. [ 33 ]. In a large-scale study, intravenous injection of magnesium was unrelated to acute myocardial infarction, but in the random-effect model, which included numerous small studies, the small study effect resulted in an association being found between intravenous injection of magnesium and myocardial infarction. This small study effect can be controlled for by using a sensitivity analysis, which is performed to examine the contribution of each of the included studies to the final meta-analysis result. In particular, when heterogeneity is suspected in the study methods or results, by changing certain data or analytical methods, this method makes it possible to verify whether the changes affect the robustness of the results, and to examine the causes of such effects [ 34 ].

Heterogeneity

Homogeneity test is a method whether the degree of heterogeneity is greater than would be expected to occur naturally when the effect size calculated from several studies is higher than the sampling error. This makes it possible to test whether the effect size calculated from several studies is the same. Three types of homogeneity tests can be used: 1) forest plot, 2) Cochrane’s Q test (chi-squared), and 3) Higgins I 2 statistics. In the forest plot, as shown in Fig. 4 , greater overlap between the confidence intervals indicates greater homogeneity. For the Q statistic, when the P value of the chi-squared test, calculated from the forest plot in Fig. 4 , is less than 0.1, it is considered to show statistical heterogeneity and a random-effect can be used. Finally, I 2 can be used [ 35 ].

I 2 , calculated as shown above, returns a value between 0 and 100%. A value less than 25% is considered to show strong homogeneity, a value of 50% is average, and a value greater than 75% indicates strong heterogeneity.

Even when the data cannot be shown to be homogeneous, a fixed-effect model can be used, ignoring the heterogeneity, and all the study results can be presented individually, without combining them. However, in many cases, a random-effect model is applied, as described above, and a subgroup analysis or meta-regression analysis is performed to explain the heterogeneity. In a subgroup analysis, the data are divided into subgroups that are expected to be homogeneous, and these subgroups are analyzed. This needs to be planned in the predetermined protocol before starting the meta-analysis. A meta-regression analysis is similar to a normal regression analysis, except that the heterogeneity between studies is modeled. This process involves performing a regression analysis of the pooled estimate for covariance at the study level, and so it is usually not considered when the number of studies is less than 10. Here, univariate and multivariate regression analyses can both be considered.

Publication bias

Publication bias is the most common type of reporting bias in meta-analyses. This refers to the distortion of meta-analysis outcomes due to the higher likelihood of publication of statistically significant studies rather than non-significant studies. In order to test the presence or absence of publication bias, first, a funnel plot can be used ( Fig. 5 ). Studies are plotted on a scatter plot with effect size on the x-axis and precision or total sample size on the y-axis. If the points form an upside-down funnel shape, with a broad base that narrows towards the top of the plot, this indicates the absence of a publication bias ( Fig. 5A ) [ 29 , 36 ]. On the other hand, if the plot shows an asymmetric shape, with no points on one side of the graph, then publication bias can be suspected ( Fig. 5B ). Second, to test publication bias statistically, Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test 8) [ 37 ] or Egger’s test 9) [ 29 ] can be used. If publication bias is detected, the trim-and-fill method 10) can be used to correct the bias [ 38 ]. Fig. 6 displays results that show publication bias in Egger’s test, which has then been corrected using the trim-and-fill method using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Biostat, USA).

Funnel plot showing the effect size on the x-axis and sample size on the y-axis as a scatter plot. (A) Funnel plot without publication bias. The individual plots are broader at the bottom and narrower at the top. (B) Funnel plot with publication bias. The individual plots are located asymmetrically.

Funnel plot adjusted using the trim-and-fill method. White circles: comparisons included. Black circles: inputted comparisons using the trim-and-fill method. White diamond: pooled observed log risk ratio. Black diamond: pooled inputted log risk ratio.

Result Presentation

When reporting the results of a systematic review or meta-analysis, the analytical content and methods should be described in detail. First, a flowchart is displayed with the literature search and selection process according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Second, a table is shown with the characteristics of the included studies. A table should also be included with information related to the quality of evidence, such as GRADE ( Table 4 ). Third, the results of data analysis are shown in a forest plot and funnel plot. Fourth, if the results use dichotomous data, the NNT values can be reported, as described above.

The GRADE Evidence Quality for Each Outcome

N: number of studies, ROB: risk of bias, PON: postoperative nausea, POV: postoperative vomiting, PONV: postoperative nausea and vomiting, CI: confidence interval, RR: risk ratio, AR: absolute risk.

When Review Manager software (The Cochrane Collaboration, UK) is used for the analysis, two types of P values are given. The first is the P value from the z-test, which tests the null hypothesis that the intervention has no effect. The second P value is from the chi-squared test, which tests the null hypothesis for a lack of heterogeneity. The statistical result for the intervention effect, which is generally considered the most important result in meta-analyses, is the z-test P value.

A common mistake when reporting results is, given a z-test P value greater than 0.05, to say there was “no statistical significance” or “no difference.” When evaluating statistical significance in a meta-analysis, a P value lower than 0.05 can be explained as “a significant difference in the effects of the two treatment methods.” However, the P value may appear non-significant whether or not there is a difference between the two treatment methods. In such a situation, it is better to announce “there was no strong evidence for an effect,” and to present the P value and confidence intervals. Another common mistake is to think that a smaller P value is indicative of a more significant effect. In meta-analyses of large-scale studies, the P value is more greatly affected by the number of studies and patients included, rather than by the significance of the results; therefore, care should be taken when interpreting the results of a meta-analysis.

When performing a systematic literature review or meta-analysis, if the quality of studies is not properly evaluated or if proper methodology is not strictly applied, the results can be biased and the outcomes can be incorrect. However, when systematic reviews and meta-analyses are properly implemented, they can yield powerful results that could usually only be achieved using large-scale RCTs, which are difficult to perform in individual studies. As our understanding of evidence-based medicine increases and its importance is better appreciated, the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses will keep increasing. However, indiscriminate acceptance of the results of all these meta-analyses can be dangerous, and hence, we recommend that their results be received critically on the basis of a more accurate understanding.

1) http://www.ohri.ca .

2) http://methods.cochrane.org/bias/assessing-risk-bias-included-studies .

3) The inverse variance-weighted estimation method is useful if the number of studies is small with large sample sizes.

4) The Mantel-Haenszel estimation method is useful if the number of studies is large with small sample sizes.

5) The Peto estimation method is useful if the event rate is low or one of the two groups shows zero incidence.

6) The most popular and simplest statistical method used in Review Manager and Comprehensive Meta-analysis software.

7) Alternative random-effect model meta-analysis that has more adequate error rates than does the common DerSimonian and Laird method, especially when the number of studies is small. However, even with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method, when there are less than five studies with very unequal sizes, extra caution is needed.

8) The Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test uses the correlation between the ranks of effect sizes and the ranks of their variances [ 37 ].

9) The degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from the regression of standard normal deviates against precision [ 29 ].

10) If there are more small studies on one side, we expect the suppression of studies on the other side. Trimming yields the adjusted effect size and reduces the variance of the effects by adding the original studies back into the analysis as a mirror image of each study.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

• Formulate a research question
• Develop a protocol
• Search for all relevant studies
• Apply the selection criteria
• Extract the data
• Synthesize the data
• Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

• A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
• If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
• Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
• Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
• Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

• They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
• Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
• They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
• They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

• They’re time-consuming .
• They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

• Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
• Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

• Population(s) or problem(s)
• Intervention(s)
• Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

• What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

• Type of study design(s)
• The population of patients with eczema
• The intervention of probiotics
• In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
• The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
• Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

• What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

• Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
• Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
• Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
• Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
• Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

• Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
• Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
• Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
• Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

• Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
• Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
• Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
• Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

• Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
• Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

• Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
• Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

• Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
• Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

• Abstract : A summary of the review
• Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
• Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
• Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
• Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
• Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis

• Getting Started
• Guides and Standards
• Review Protocols
• Databases and Sources
• Randomized Controlled Trials
• Controlled Clinical Trials
• Observational Designs
• Tests of Diagnostic Accuracy
• Software and Tools
• Where do I get all those articles?
• Collaborations
• EPI 233/528
• Countway Mediated Search
• Risk of Bias (RoB)

Systematic review Q & A

What is a systematic review.

A systematic review is guided filtering and synthesis of all available evidence addressing a specific, focused research question, generally about a specific intervention or exposure. The use of standardized, systematic methods and pre-selected eligibility criteria reduce the risk of bias in identifying, selecting and analyzing relevant studies. A well-designed systematic review includes clear objectives, pre-selected criteria for identifying eligible studies, an explicit methodology, a thorough and reproducible search of the literature, an assessment of the validity or risk of bias of each included study, and a systematic synthesis, analysis and presentation of the findings of the included studies. A systematic review may include a meta-analysis.

For details about carrying out systematic reviews, see the Guides and Standards section of this guide.

Is my research topic appropriate for systematic review methods?

A systematic review is best deployed to test a specific hypothesis about a healthcare or public health intervention or exposure. By focusing on a single intervention or a few specific interventions for a particular condition, the investigator can ensure a manageable results set. Moreover, examining a single or small set of related interventions, exposures, or outcomes, will simplify the assessment of studies and the synthesis of the findings.

Systematic reviews are poor tools for hypothesis generation: for instance, to determine what interventions have been used to increase the awareness and acceptability of a vaccine or to investigate the ways that predictive analytics have been used in health care management. In the first case, we don't know what interventions to search for and so have to screen all the articles about awareness and acceptability. In the second, there is no agreed on set of methods that make up predictive analytics, and health care management is far too broad. The search will necessarily be incomplete, vague and very large all at the same time. In most cases, reviews without clearly and exactly specified populations, interventions, exposures, and outcomes will produce results sets that quickly outstrip the resources of a small team and offer no consistent way to assess and synthesize findings from the studies that are identified.

If not a systematic review, then what?

You might consider performing a scoping review . This framework allows iterative searching over a reduced number of data sources and no requirement to assess individual studies for risk of bias. The framework includes built-in mechanisms to adjust the analysis as the work progresses and more is learned about the topic. A scoping review won't help you limit the number of records you'll need to screen (broad questions lead to large results sets) but may give you means of dealing with a large set of results.

This tool can help you decide what kind of review is right for your question.

Can my student complete a systematic review during her summer project?

Probably not. Systematic reviews are a lot of work. Including creating the protocol, building and running a quality search, collecting all the papers, evaluating the studies that meet the inclusion criteria and extracting and analyzing the summary data, a well done review can require dozens to hundreds of hours of work that can span several months. Moreover, a systematic review requires subject expertise, statistical support and a librarian to help design and run the search. Be aware that librarians sometimes have queues for their search time. It may take several weeks to complete and run a search. Moreover, all guidelines for carrying out systematic reviews recommend that at least two subject experts screen the studies identified in the search. The first round of screening can consume 1 hour per screener for every 100-200 records. A systematic review is a labor-intensive team effort.

How can I know if my topic has been been reviewed already?

Before starting out on a systematic review, check to see if someone has done it already. In PubMed you can use the systematic review subset to limit to a broad group of papers that is enriched for systematic reviews. You can invoke the subset by selecting if from the Article Types filters to the left of your PubMed results, or you can append AND systematic[sb] to your search. For example:

"neoadjuvant chemotherapy" AND systematic[sb]

The systematic review subset is very noisy, however. To quickly focus on systematic reviews (knowing that you may be missing some), simply search for the word systematic in the title:

"neoadjuvant chemotherapy" AND systematic[ti]

Any PRISMA-compliant systematic review will be captured by this method since including the words "systematic review" in the title is a requirement of the PRISMA checklist. Cochrane systematic reviews do not include 'systematic' in the title, however. It's worth checking the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews independently.

You can also search for protocols that will indicate that another group has set out on a similar project. Many investigators will register their protocols in PROSPERO , a registry of review protocols. Other published protocols as well as Cochrane Review protocols appear in the Cochrane Methodology Register, a part of the Cochrane Library .

• Next: Guides and Standards >>
• Last Updated: Feb 26, 2024 3:17 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/meta-analysis

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

What is a systematic literature review?

Where are systematic literature reviews used, what types of systematic literature reviews are there, how to write a systematic literature review, 1. decide on your team, 2. formulate your question, 3. plan your research protocol, 4. search for the literature, 5. screen the literature, 6. assess the quality of the studies, 7. extract the data, 8. analyze the results, 9. interpret and present the results, registering your systematic literature review, frequently asked questions about writing a systematic literature review, related articles.

A systematic literature review is a summary, analysis, and evaluation of all the existing research on a well-formulated and specific question.

Put simply, a systematic review is a study of studies that is popular in medical and healthcare research. In this guide, we will cover:

• the definition of a systematic literature review
• the purpose of a systematic literature review
• the different types of systematic reviews
• how to write a systematic literature review

➡️ Visit our guide to the best research databases for medicine and health to find resources for your systematic review.

Systematic literature reviews can be utilized in various contexts, but they’re often relied on in clinical or healthcare settings.

Medical professionals read systematic literature reviews to stay up-to-date in their field, and granting agencies sometimes need them to make sure there’s justification for further research in an area. They can even be used as the starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines.

A classic systematic literature review can take different approaches:

• Effectiveness reviews assess the extent to which a medical intervention or therapy achieves its intended effect. They’re the most common type of systematic literature review.
• Diagnostic test accuracy reviews produce a summary of diagnostic test performance so that their accuracy can be determined before use by healthcare professionals.
• Experiential (qualitative) reviews analyze human experiences in a cultural or social context. They can be used to assess the effectiveness of an intervention from a person-centric perspective.
• Costs/economics evaluation reviews look at the cost implications of an intervention or procedure, to assess the resources needed to implement it.
• Etiology/risk reviews usually try to determine to what degree a relationship exists between an exposure and a health outcome. This can be used to better inform healthcare planning and resource allocation.
• Psychometric reviews assess the quality of health measurement tools so that the best instrument can be selected for use.
• Prevalence/incidence reviews measure both the proportion of a population who have a disease, and how often the disease occurs.
• Prognostic reviews examine the course of a disease and its potential outcomes.
• Expert opinion/policy reviews are based around expert narrative or policy. They’re often used to complement, or in the absence of, quantitative data.
• Methodology systematic reviews can be carried out to analyze any methodological issues in the design, conduct, or review of research studies.

Writing a systematic literature review can feel like an overwhelming undertaking. After all, they can often take 6 to 18 months to complete. Below we’ve prepared a step-by-step guide on how to write a systematic literature review.

• Decide on your team.
• Formulate your question.
• Plan your research protocol.
• Search for the literature.
• Screen the literature.
• Assess the quality of the studies.
• Extract the data.
• Analyze the results.
• Interpret and present the results.

When carrying out a systematic literature review, you should employ multiple reviewers in order to minimize bias and strengthen analysis. A minimum of two is a good rule of thumb, with a third to serve as a tiebreaker if needed.

You may also need to team up with a librarian to help with the search, literature screeners, a statistician to analyze the data, and the relevant subject experts.

Define your answerable question. Then ask yourself, “has someone written a systematic literature review on my question already?” If so, yours may not be needed. A librarian can help you answer this.

You should formulate a “well-built clinical question.” This is the process of generating a good search question. To do this, run through PICO:

• Patient or Population or Problem/Disease : who or what is the question about? Are there factors about them (e.g. age, race) that could be relevant to the question you’re trying to answer?
• Intervention : which main intervention or treatment are you considering for assessment?
• Comparison(s) or Control : is there an alternative intervention or treatment you’re considering? Your systematic literature review doesn’t have to contain a comparison, but you’ll want to stipulate at this stage, either way.
• Outcome(s) : what are you trying to measure or achieve? What’s the wider goal for the work you’ll be doing?

Now you need a detailed strategy for how you’re going to search for and evaluate the studies relating to your question.

The protocol for your systematic literature review should include:

• the objectives of your project
• the specific methods and processes that you’ll use
• the eligibility criteria of the individual studies
• how you plan to extract data from individual studies
• which analyses you’re going to carry out

For a full guide on how to systematically develop your protocol, take a look at the PRISMA checklist . PRISMA has been designed primarily to improve the reporting of systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses.

When writing a systematic literature review, your goal is to find all of the relevant studies relating to your question, so you need to search thoroughly .

This is where your librarian will come in handy again. They should be able to help you formulate a detailed search strategy, and point you to all of the best databases for your topic.

➡️ Read more on on how to efficiently search research databases .

The places to consider in your search are electronic scientific databases (the most popular are PubMed , MEDLINE , and Embase ), controlled clinical trial registers, non-English literature, raw data from published trials, references listed in primary sources, and unpublished sources known to experts in the field.

➡️ Take a look at our list of the top academic research databases .

Tip: Don’t miss out on “gray literature.” You’ll improve the reliability of your findings by including it.

Don’t miss out on “gray literature” sources: those sources outside of the usual academic publishing environment. They include:

• non-peer-reviewed journals
• pharmaceutical industry files
• conference proceedings
• pharmaceutical company websites
• internal reports

Gray literature sources are more likely to contain negative conclusions, so you’ll improve the reliability of your findings by including it. You should document details such as:

• The databases you search and which years they cover
• The dates you first run the searches, and when they’re updated
• Which strategies you use, including search terms
• The numbers of results obtained

➡️ Read more about gray literature .

This should be performed by your two reviewers, using the criteria documented in your research protocol. The screening is done in two phases:

• Pre-screening of all titles and abstracts, and selecting those appropriate
• Screening of the full-text articles of the selected studies

Make sure reviewers keep a log of which studies they exclude, with reasons why.

➡️ Visit our guide on what is an abstract?

Your reviewers should evaluate the methodological quality of your chosen full-text articles. Make an assessment checklist that closely aligns with your research protocol, including a consistent scoring system, calculations of the quality of each study, and sensitivity analysis.

The kinds of questions you'll come up with are:

• Were the participants really randomly allocated to their groups?
• Were the groups similar in terms of prognostic factors?
• Could the conclusions of the study have been influenced by bias?

Every step of the data extraction must be documented for transparency and replicability. Create a data extraction form and set your reviewers to work extracting data from the qualified studies.

Here’s a free detailed template for recording data extraction, from Dalhousie University. It should be adapted to your specific question.

Establish a standard measure of outcome which can be applied to each study on the basis of its effect size.

Measures of outcome for studies with:

• Binary outcomes (e.g. cured/not cured) are odds ratio and risk ratio
• Continuous outcomes (e.g. blood pressure) are means, difference in means, and standardized difference in means
• Survival or time-to-event data are hazard ratios

Design a table and populate it with your data results. Draw this out into a forest plot , which provides a simple visual representation of variation between the studies.

Then analyze the data for issues. These can include heterogeneity, which is when studies’ lines within the forest plot don’t overlap with any other studies. Again, record any excluded studies here for reference.

Consider different factors when interpreting your results. These include limitations, strength of evidence, biases, applicability, economic effects, and implications for future practice or research.

Apply appropriate grading of your evidence and consider the strength of your recommendations.

It’s best to formulate a detailed plan for how you’ll present your systematic review results. Take a look at these guidelines for interpreting results from the Cochrane Institute.

Before writing your systematic literature review, you can register it with OSF for additional guidance along the way. You could also register your completed work with PROSPERO .

Systematic literature reviews are often found in clinical or healthcare settings. Medical professionals read systematic literature reviews to stay up-to-date in their field and granting agencies sometimes need them to make sure there’s justification for further research in an area.

The first stage in carrying out a systematic literature review is to put together your team. You should employ multiple reviewers in order to minimize bias and strengthen analysis. A minimum of two is a good rule of thumb, with a third to serve as a tiebreaker if needed.

Your systematic review should include the following details:

A literature review simply provides a summary of the literature available on a topic. A systematic review, on the other hand, is more than just a summary. It also includes an analysis and evaluation of existing research. Put simply, it's a study of studies.

The final stage of conducting a systematic literature review is interpreting and presenting the results. It’s best to formulate a detailed plan for how you’ll present your systematic review results, guidelines can be found for example from the Cochrane institute .

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Systematic, Scoping, and Other Literature Reviews: Overview

• Project Planning

What Is a Systematic Review?

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

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

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

Getting Help with Reviews

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

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

Doing a Systematic Review

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

Adapted from

Types of reviews, systematic review.

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

Meta-Analysis

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

Scoping Review

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

Rapid Review

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

Narrative Review

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

Umbrella Review

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

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

• Next: Project Planning >>

• Request new password
• Create a new account

The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project

Student resources, steps in systematic data analysis, stepping your way through effective systematic data analysis.

Formulate the research question  – Like any research process, a clear, unambiguous research question will help set the direction for your study, i.e. what type of health promotions campaigns have been most effective in reducing smoking rates of Australian teenagers or Does school leadership makes a difference to educational standards?

Develop and use an explicit, reproducible methodology  – Key to systematic reviews are that bias is minimized and that methods are transparent and reproducible.

Develop and use clear inclusion/ exclusion criteria  – The array of literature out there is vast. Determining clear selection criteria for inclusion is essential.

Develop and use an explicit search strategy  – It is important to identify all studies that meet the eligibility criteria set in #3. The search for studies need to be extensive should be extensive and draw on multiple databases.

Critically assess the validity of the findings in included studies  – This is likely to involve critical appraisal guides and quality checklists that cover participant recruitment, data collection methods, and modes of analysis. Assessment is often conducted by two or more reviewers who know both the topic area and commonly used methods.

Analysis of findings across the studies  – This can involve analysis, comparison, and synthesis of results using methodological criteria. This is often the case for qualitative studies. Quantitative studies generally attempt to use statistical methods to explore differences between studies and combine their effects (see meta analysis below). If divergences are found, the source of the divergence is analysed.

Synthesis and interpretation of results  – synthesized results need to be interpreted in light of both the limitations of the review and the studies it contains. An example here might be the inclusion of only studies reported in English. This level of transparency allows readers to assess the review credibility and applicability of findings.​

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

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

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

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 08 April 2024

A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions

• Julian Packheiser   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9805-6755 2   na1   nAff1 ,
• Helena Hartmann 2 , 3 , 4   na1 ,
• Kelly Fredriksen 2 ,
• Valeria Gazzola   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0324-0619 2 ,
• Christian Keysers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2845-5467 2 &
• Frédéric Michon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1289-2133 2  

Nature Human Behaviour ( 2024 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

1966 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour
• Paediatric research
• Randomized controlled trials

Receiving touch is of critical importance, as many studies have shown that touch promotes mental and physical well-being. We conducted a pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022304281) systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis encompassing 137 studies in the meta-analysis and 75 additional studies in the systematic review ( n  = 12,966 individuals, search via Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science until 1 October 2022) to identify critical factors moderating touch intervention efficacy. Included studies always featured a touch versus no touch control intervention with diverse health outcomes as dependent variables. Risk of bias was assessed via small study, randomization, sequencing, performance and attrition bias. Touch interventions were especially effective in regulating cortisol levels (Hedges’ g  = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.31) and increasing weight (0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) in newborns as well as in reducing pain (0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89), feelings of depression (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78) and state (0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84) or trait anxiety (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) for adults. Comparing touch interventions involving objects or robots resulted in similar physical (0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88 versus 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.64) but lower mental health benefits (0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.49 versus 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73). Adult clinical cohorts profited more strongly in mental health domains compared with healthy individuals (0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80 versus 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55). We found no difference in health benefits in adults when comparing touch applied by a familiar person or a health care professional (0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73 versus 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), but parental touch was more beneficial in newborns (0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88 versus 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.61). Small but significant small study bias and the impossibility to blind experimental conditions need to be considered. Leveraging factors that influence touch intervention efficacy will help maximize the benefits of future interventions and focus research in this field.

Similar content being viewed by others

Touching the social robot PARO reduces pain perception and salivary oxytocin levels

Nirit Geva, Florina Uzefovsky & Shelly Levy-Tzedek

The impact of mindfulness apps on psychological processes of change: a systematic review

Natalia Macrynikola, Zareen Mir, … John Torous

The why, who and how of social touch

Juulia T. Suvilehto, Asta Cekaite & India Morrison

The sense of touch has immense importance for many aspects of our life. It is the first of all the senses to develop in newborns 1 and the most direct experience of contact with our physical and social environment 2 . Complementing our own touch experience, we also regularly receive touch from others around us, for example, through consensual hugs, kisses or massages 3 .

The recent coronavirus pandemic has raised awareness regarding the need to better understand the effects that touch—and its reduction during social distancing—can have on our mental and physical well-being. The most common touch interventions, for example, massage for adults or kangaroo care for newborns, have been shown to have a wide range of both mental and physical health benefits, from facilitating growth and development to buffering against anxiety and stress, over the lifespan of humans and animals alike 4 . Despite the substantial weight this literature gives to support the benefits of touch, it is also characterized by a large variability in, for example, studied cohorts (adults, children, newborns and animals), type and duration of applied touch (for example, one-time hug versus repeated 60-min massages), measured health outcomes (ranging from physical health outcomes such as sleep and blood pressure to mental health outcomes such as depression or mood) and who actually applies the touch (for example, partner versus stranger).

A meaningful tool to make sense of this vast amount of research is through meta-analysis. While previous meta-analyses on this topic exist, they were limited in scope, focusing only on particular types of touch, cohorts or specific health outcomes (for example, refs. 5 , 6 ). Furthermore, despite best efforts, meaningful variables that moderate the efficacy of touch interventions could not yet be identified. However, understanding these variables is critical to tailor touch interventions and guide future research to navigate this diverse field with the ultimate aim of promoting well-being in the population.

In this Article, we describe a pre-registered, large-scale systematic review and multilevel, multivariate meta-analysis to address this need with quantitative evidence for (1) the effect of touch interventions on physical and mental health and (2) which moderators influence the efficacy of the intervention. In particular, we ask whether and how strongly health outcomes depend on the dynamics of the touching dyad (for example, humans or robots/objects, familiarity and touch directionality), demographics (for example, clinical status, age or sex), delivery means (for example, type of touch intervention or touched body part) and procedure (for example, duration or number of sessions). We did so separately for newborns and for children and adults, as the health outcomes in newborns differed substantially from those in the other age groups. Despite the focus of the analysis being on humans, it is widely known that many animal species benefit from touch interactions and that engaging in touch promotes their well-being as well 7 . Since animal models are essential for the investigation of the mechanisms underlying biological processes and for the development of therapeutic approaches, we accordingly included health benefits of touch interventions in non-human animals as part of our systematic review. However, this search yielded only a small number of studies, suggesting a lack of research in this domain, and as such, was insufficient to be included in the meta-analysis. We evaluate the identified animal studies and their findings in the discussion.

Touch interventions have a medium-sized effect

The pre-registration can be found at ref. 8 . The flowchart for data collection and extraction is depicted in Fig. 1 .

Animal outcomes refer to outcomes measured in non-human species that were solely considered as part of a systematic review. Included languages were French, Dutch, German and English, but our search did not identify any articles in French, Dutch or German. MA, meta-analysis.

For adults, a total of n  = 2,841 and n  = 2,556 individuals in the touch and control groups, respectively, across 85 studies and 103 cohorts were included. The effect of touch overall was medium-sized ( t (102) = 9.74, P  < 0.001, Hedges’ g  = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.63; Fig. 2a ). For newborns, we could include 63 cohorts across 52 studies comprising a total of n  = 2,134 and n  = 2,086 newborns in the touch and control groups, respectively, with an overall effect almost identical to the older age group ( t (62) = 7.53, P  < 0.001, Hedges’ g  = 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.71; Fig. 2b ), suggesting that, despite distinct health outcomes, touch interventions show comparable effects across newborns and adults. Using these overall effect estimates, we conducted a power sensitivity analysis of all the included primary studies to investigate whether such effects could be reliably detected 9 . Sufficient power to detect such effect sizes was rare in individual studies, as investigated by firepower plots 10 (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 ). No individual effect size from either meta-analysis was overly influential (Cook’s D  < 0.06). The benefits were similar for mental and physical outcomes (mental versus physical; adults: t (101) = 0.79, P  = 0.432, Hedges’ g difference of −0.05, 95% CI −0.16 to 0.07, Fig. 2c ; newborns: t (61) = 1.08, P  = 0.284, Hedges’ g difference of −0.19, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.16, Fig. 2d ).

a , Orchard plot illustrating the overall benefits across all health outcomes for adults/children across 469 in part dependent effect sizes from 85 studies and 103 cohorts. b , The same as a but for newborns across 174 in part dependent effect sizes from 52 studies and 63 cohorts. c , The same as a but separating the results for physical versus mental health benefits across 469 in part dependent effect sizes from 85 studies and 103 cohorts. d , The same as b but separating the results for physical versus mental health benefits across 172 in part dependent effect sizes from 52 studies and 63 cohorts. Each dot reflects a measured effect, and the number of effects ( k ) included in the analysis is depicted in the bottom left. Mean effects and 95% CIs are presented in the bottom right and are indicated by the central black dot (mean effect) and its error bars (95% CI). The heterogeneity Q statistic is presented in the top left. Overall effects of moderator impact were assessed via an F test, and post hoc comparisons were done using t tests (two-sided test). Note that the P values above the mean effects indicate whether an effect differed significantly from a zero effect. P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The dot size reflects the precision of each individual effect (larger indicates higher precision). Small-study bias for the overall effect was significant ( F test, two-sided test) in the adult meta-analysis ( F (1, 101) = 21.24, P  < 0.001; Supplementary Fig. 3 ) as well as in the newborn meta-analysis ( F (1, 61) = 5.25, P  = 0.025; Supplementary Fig. 4 ).

Source data

On the basis of the overall effect of both meta-analyses as well as their median sample sizes, the minimum number of studies necessary for subgroup analyses to achieve 80% power was k  = 9 effects for adults and k  = 8 effects for newborns (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6 ). Assessing specific health outcomes with sufficient power in more detail in adults (Fig. 3a ) revealed smaller benefits to sleep and heart rate parameters, moderate benefits to positive and negative affect, diastolic blood and systolic blood pressure, mobility and reductions of the stress hormone cortisol and larger benefits to trait and state anxiety, depression, fatigue and pain. Post hoc tests revealed stronger benefits for pain, state anxiety, depression and trait anxiety compared with respiratory, sleep and heart rate parameters (see Fig. 3 for all post hoc comparisons). Reductions in pain and state anxiety were increased compared with reductions in negative affect ( t (83) = 2.54, P  = 0.013, Hedges’ g difference of 0.31, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55; t (83) = 2.31, P  = 0.024, Hedges’ g difference of 0.27, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.51). Benefits to pain symptoms were higher compared with benefits to positive affect ( t (83) = 2.22, P  = 0.030, Hedges’ g difference of 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.54). Finally, touch resulted in larger benefits to cortisol release compared with heart rate parameters ( t (83) = 2.30, P  = 0.024, Hedges’ g difference of 0.26, 95% CI 0.04–0.48).

a , b , Health outcomes in adults analysed across 405 in part dependent effect sizes from 79 studies and 97 cohorts ( a ) and in newborns analysed across 105 in part dependent effect sizes from 46 studies and 56 cohorts ( b ). The type of health outcomes measured differed between adults and newborns and were thus analysed separately. Numbers on the right represent the mean effect with its 95% CI in square brackets and the significance level estimating the likelihood that the effect is equal to zero. Overall effects of moderator impact were assessed via an F test, and post hoc comparisons were done using t tests (two-sided test). The F value in the top right represents a test of the hypothesis that all effects within the subpanel are equal. The Q statistic represents the heterogeneity. P values of post hoc tests are depicted whenever significant. P values above the horizontal whiskers indicate whether an effect differed significantly from a zero effect. Vertical lines indicate significant post hoc tests between moderator levels. P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Physical outcomes are marked in red. Mental outcomes are marked in blue.

In newborns, only physical health effects offered sufficient data for further analysis. We found no benefits for digestion and heart rate parameters. All other health outcomes (cortisol, liver enzymes, respiration, temperature regulation and weight gain) showed medium to large effects (Fig. 3b ). We found no significant differences among any specific health outcomes.

Non-human touch and skin-to-skin contact

In some situations, a fellow human is not readily available to provide affective touch, raising the question of the efficacy of touch delivered by objects and robots 11 . Overall, we found humans engaging in touch with other humans or objects to have medium-sized health benefits in adults, without significant differences ( t (99) = 1.05, P  = 0.295, Hedges’ g difference of 0.12, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.35; Fig. 4a ). However, differentiating physical versus mental health benefits revealed similar benefits for human and object touch on physical health outcomes, but larger benefits on mental outcomes when humans were touched by humans ( t (97) = 2.32, P  = 0.022, Hedges’ g difference of 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.44; Fig. 4b ). It must be noted that touching with an object still showed a significant effect (see Supplementary Fig. 7 for the corresponding orchard plot).

a , Forest plot comparing humans versus objects touching a human on health outcomes overall across 467 in part dependent effect sizes from 85 studies and 101 cohorts. b , The same as a but separately for mental versus physical health outcomes across 467 in part dependent effect sizes from 85 studies and 101 cohorts. c , Results with the removal of all object studies, leaving 406 in part dependent effect sizes from 71 studies and 88 cohorts to identify whether missing skin-to-skin contact is the relevant mediator of higher mental health effects in human–human interactions. Numbers on the right represent the mean effect with its 95% CI in square brackets and the significance level estimating the likelihood that the effect is equal to zero. Overall effects of moderator impact were assessed via an F test, and post hoc comparisons were done using t tests (two-sided test). The F value in the top right represents a test of the hypothesis that all effects within the subpanel are equal. The Q statistic represents the heterogeneity. P values of post hoc tests are depicted whenever significant. P values above the horizontal whiskers indicate whether an effect differed significantly from a zero effect. Vertical lines indicate significant post hoc tests between moderator levels. P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Physical outcomes are marked in red. Mental outcomes are marked in blue.

We considered the possibility that this effect was due to missing skin-to-skin contact in human–object interactions. Thus, we investigated human–human interactions with and without skin-to-skin contact (Fig. 4c ). In line with the hypothesis that skin-to-skin contact is highly relevant, we again found stronger mental health benefits in the presence of skin-to-skin contact that however did not achieve nominal significance ( t (69) = 1.95, P  = 0.055, Hedges’ g difference of 0.41, 95% CI −0.00 to 0.82), possibly because skin-to-skin contact was rarely absent in human–human interactions, leading to a decrease in power of this analysis. Results for skin-to-skin contact as an overall moderator can be found in Supplementary Fig. 8 .

Influences of type of touch

The large majority of touch interventions comprised massage therapy in adults and kangaroo care in newborns (see Supplementary Table 1 for a complete list of interventions across studies). However, comparing the different types of touch explored across studies did not reveal significant differences in effect sizes based on touch type, be it on overall health benefits (adults: t (101) = 0.11, P  = 0.916, Hedges’ g difference of 0.02, 95% CI −0.32 to 0.29; Fig. 5a ) or comparing different forms of touch separately for physical (massage therapy versus other forms: t (99) = 0.99, P  = 0.325, Hedges’ g difference 0.16, 95% CI −0.15 to 0.47) or for mental health benefits (massage therapy versus other forms: t (99) = 0.75, P  = 0.458, Hedges’ g difference of 0.13, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.48) in adults (Fig. 5c ; see Supplementary Fig. 9 for the corresponding orchard plot). A similar picture emerged for physical health effects in newborns (massage therapy versus kangaroo care: t (58) = 0.94, P  = 0.353, Hedges’ g difference of 0.15, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.47; massage therapy versus other forms: t (58) = 0.56, P  = 0.577, Hedges’ g difference of 0.13, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.60; kangaroo care versus other forms: t (58) = 0.07, P  = 0.947, Hedges’ g difference of 0.02, 95% CI −0.46 to 0.50; Fig. 5d ; see also Supplementary Fig. 10 for the corresponding orchard plot). This suggests that touch types may be flexibly adapted to the setting of every touch intervention.

a , Forest plot of health benefits comparing massage therapy versus other forms of touch in adult cohorts across 469 in part dependent effect sizes from 85 studies and 103 cohorts. b , Forest plot of health benefits comparing massage therapy, kangaroo care and other forms of touch for newborns across 174 in part dependent effect sizes from 52 studies and 63 cohorts. c , The same as a but separating mental and physical health benefits across 469 in part dependent effect sizes from 85 studies and 103 cohorts. d , The same as b but separating mental and physical health outcomes where possible across 164 in part dependent effect sizes from 51 studies and 62 cohorts. Note that an insufficient number of studies assessed mental health benefits of massage therapy or other forms of touch to be included. Numbers on the right represent the mean effect with its 95% CI in square brackets and the significance level estimating the likelihood that the effect is equal to zero. Overall effects of moderator impact were assessed via an F test, and post hoc comparisons were done using t tests (two-sided test). The F value in the top right represents a test of the hypothesis that all effects within the subpanel are equal. The Q statistic represents heterogeneity. P values of post hoc tests are depicted whenever significant. P values above the horizontal whiskers indicate whether an effect differed significantly from a zero effect. Vertical lines indicate significant post hoc tests between moderator levels. P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Physical outcomes are marked in red. Mental outcomes are marked in blue.

The role of clinical status

Most research on touch interventions has focused on clinical samples, but are benefits restricted to clinical cohorts? We found health benefits to be significant in clinical and healthy populations (Fig. 6 ), whether all outcomes are considered (Fig. 6a,b ) or physical and mental health outcomes are separated (Fig. 6c,d , see Supplementary Figs. 11 and 12 for the corresponding orchard plots). In adults, however, we found higher mental health benefits for clinical populations compared with healthy ones (Fig. 6c ; t (99) = 2.11, P  = 0.037, Hedges’ g difference of 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.49).

a , Health benefits for clinical cohorts of adults versus healthy cohorts of adults across 469 in part dependent effect sizes from 85 studies and 103 cohorts. b , The same as a but for newborn cohorts across 174 in part dependent effect sizes from 52 studies and 63 cohorts. c , The same as a but separating mental versus physical health benefits across 469 in part dependent effect sizes from 85 studies and 103 cohorts. d , The same as b but separating mental versus physical health benefits across 172 in part dependent effect sizes from 52 studies and 63 cohorts. Numbers on the right represent the mean effect with its 95% CI in square brackets and the significance level estimating the likelihood that the effect is equal to zero. Overall effects of moderator impact were assessed via an F test, and post hoc comparisons were done using t tests (two-sided test).The F value in the top right represents a test of the hypothesis that all effects within the subpanel are equal. The Q statistic represents the heterogeneity. P values of post hoc tests are depicted whenever significant. P values above the horizontal whiskers indicate whether an effect differed significantly from a zero effect. Vertical lines indicate significant post hoc tests between moderator levels. P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Physical outcomes are marked in red. Mental outcomes are marked in blue.

A more detailed analysis of specific clinical conditions in adults revealed positive mental and physical health benefits for almost all assessed clinical disorders. Differences between disorders were not found, with the exception of increased effectiveness of touch interventions in neurological disorders (Supplementary Fig. 13 ).

Familiarity in the touching dyad and intervention location

Touch interventions can be performed either by familiar touchers (partners, family members or friends) or by unfamiliar touchers (health care professionals). In adults, we did not find an impact of familiarity of the toucher ( t (99) = 0.12, P  = 0.905, Hedges’ g difference of 0.02, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.24; Fig. 7a ; see Supplementary Fig. 14 for the corresponding orchard plot). Similarly, investigating the impact on mental and physical health benefits specifically, no significant differences could be detected, suggesting that familiarity is irrelevant in adults. In contrast, touch applied to newborns by their parents (almost all studies only included touch by the mother) was significantly more beneficial compared with unfamiliar touch ( t (60) = 2.09, P  = 0.041, Hedges’ g difference of 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.59) (Fig. 7b ; see Supplementary Fig. 15 for the corresponding orchard plot). Investigating mental and physical health benefits specifically revealed no significant differences. Familiarity with the location in which the touch was applied (familiar being, for example, the participants’ home) did not influence the efficacy of touch interventions (Supplementary Fig. 16 ).

a , Health benefits for being touched by a familiar (for example, partner, family member or friend) versus unfamiliar toucher (health care professional) across 463 in part dependent effect sizes from 83 studies and 101 cohorts. b , The same as a but for newborn cohorts across 171 in part dependent effect sizes from 51 studies and 62 cohorts. c , The same as a but separating mental versus physical health benefits across 463 in part dependent effect sizes from 83 studies and 101 cohorts. d , The same as b but separating mental versus physical health benefits across 169 in part dependent effect sizes from 51 studies and 62 cohorts. Numbers on the right represent the mean effect with its 95% CI in square brackets and the significance level estimating the likelihood that the effect is equal to zero. Overall effects of moderator impact were assessed via an F test, and post hoc comparisons were done using t tests (two-sided test). The F value in the top right represents a test of the hypothesis that all effects within the subpanel are equal. The Q statistic represents the heterogeneity. P values of post hoc tests are depicted whenever significant. P values above the horizontal whiskers indicate whether an effect differed significantly from a zero effect. Vertical lines indicate significant post hoc tests between moderator levels. P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Physical outcomes are marked in red. Mental outcomes are marked in blue.

Frequency and duration of touch interventions

How often and for how long should touch be delivered? For adults, the median touch duration across studies was 20 min and the median number of touch interventions was four sessions with an average time interval of 2.3 days between each session. For newborns, the median touch duration across studies was 17.5 min and the median number of touch interventions was seven sessions with an average time interval of 1.3 days between each session.

Delivering more touch sessions increased benefits in adults, whether overall ( t (101) = 4.90, P  < 0.001, Hedges’ g  = 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.03), physical ( t (81) = 3.07, P  = 0.003, Hedges’ g  = 0.02, 95% CI 0.01–0.03) or mental benefits ( t (72) = 5.43, P  < 0.001, Hedges’ g  = 0.02, 95% CI 0.01–0.03) were measured (Fig. 8a ). A closer look at specific outcomes for which sufficient data were available revealed that positive associations between the number of sessions and outcomes were found for trait anxiety ( t (12) = 7.90, P  < 0.001, Hedges’ g  = 0.03, 95% CI 0.02–0.04), depression ( t (20) = 10.69, P  < 0.001, Hedges’ g  = 0.03, 95% CI 0.03–0.04) and pain ( t (37) = 3.65, P  < 0.001, Hedges’ g  = 0.03, 95% CI 0.02–0.05), indicating a need for repeated sessions to improve these adverse health outcomes. Neither increasing the number of sessions for newborns nor increasing the duration of touch per session in adults or newborns increased health benefits, be they physical or mental (Fig. 8b–d ). For continuous moderators in adults, we also looked at specific health outcomes as sufficient data were generally available for further analysis. Surprisingly, we found significant negative associations between touch duration and reductions of cortisol ( t (24) = 2.71, P  = 0.012, Hedges’ g  = −0.01, 95% CI −0.01 to −0.00) and heart rate parameters ( t (21) = 2.35, P  = 0.029, Hedges’ g  = −0.01, 95% CI −0.02 to −0.00).

a , Meta-regression analysis examining the association between the number of sessions applied and the effect size in adults, either on overall health benefits (left, 469 in part dependent effect sizes from 85 studies and 103 cohorts) or for physical (middle, 245 in part dependent effect sizes from 69 studies and 83 cohorts) or mental benefits (right, 224 in part dependent effect sizes from 60 studies and 74 cohorts) separately. b , The same as a for newborns (overall: 150 in part dependent effect sizes from 46 studies and 53 cohorts; physical health: 127 in part dependent effect sizes from 44 studies and 51 cohorts; mental health: 21 in part dependent effect sizes from 11 studies and 12 cohorts). c , d the same as a ( c ) and b ( d ) but for the duration of the individual sessions. For adults, 449 in part dependent effect sizes across 80 studies and 96 cohorts were included in the overall analysis. The analysis of physical health benefits included 240 in part dependent effect sizes across 67 studies and 80 cohorts, and the analysis of mental health benefits included 209 in part dependent effect sizes from 56 studies and 69 cohorts. For newborns, 145 in part dependent effect sizes across 45 studies and 52 cohorts were included in the overall analysis. The analysis of physical health benefits included 122 in part dependent effect sizes across 43 studies and 50 cohorts, and the analysis of mental health benefits included 21 in part dependent effect sizes from 11 studies and 12 cohorts. Each dot represents an effect size. Its size indicates the precision of the study (larger indicates better). Overall effects of moderator impact were assessed via an F test (two-sided test). The P values in each panel represent the result of a regression analysis testing the hypothesis that the slope of the relationship is equal to zero. P values are not corrected for multiple testing. The shaded area around the regression line represents the 95% CI.

Demographic influences of sex and age

We used the ratio between women and men in the single-study samples as a proxy for sex-specific effects. Sex ratios were heavily skewed towards larger numbers of women in each cohort (median 83% women), and we could not find significant associations between sex ratio and overall ( t (62) = 0.08, P  = 0.935, Hedges’ g  = 0.00, 95% CI −0.00 to 0.01), mental ( t (43) = 0.55, P  = 0.588, Hedges’ g  = 0.00, 95% CI −0.00 to 0.01) or physical health benefits ( t (51) = 0.15, P  = 0.882, Hedges’ g  = −0.00, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.01). For specific outcomes that could be further analysed, we found a significant positive association of sex ratio with reductions in cortisol secretion ( t (18) = 2.31, P  = 0.033, Hedges’ g  = 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01) suggesting stronger benefits in women. In contrast to adults, sex ratios were balanced in samples of newborns (median 53% girls). For newborns, there was no significant association with overall ( t (36) = 0.77, P  = 0.447, Hedges’ g  = −0.01, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.01) and physical health benefits of touch ( t (35) = 0.93, P  = 0.359, Hedges’ g  = −0.01, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.01). Mental health benefits did not provide sufficient data for further analysis.

The median age in the adult meta-analysis was 42.6 years (s.d. 21.16 years, range 4.5–88.4 years). There was no association between age and the overall ( t (73) = 0.35, P  = 0.727, Hedges’ g = 0.00, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.01), mental ( t (53) = 0.94, P  = 0.353, Hedges’ g  = 0.01, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.02) and physical health benefits of touch ( t (60) = 0.16, P  = 0.870, Hedges’ g  = 0.00, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.01). Looking at specific health outcomes, we found significant positive associations between mean age and improved positive affect ( t (10) = 2.54, P  = 0.030, Hedges’ g  = 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02) as well as systolic blood pressure ( t (11) = 2.39, P  = 0.036, Hedges’ g  = 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.04).

A list of touched body parts can be found in Supplementary Table 1 . For the touched body part, we found significantly higher health benefits for head touch compared with arm touch ( t (40) = 2.14, P  = 0.039, Hedges’ g difference of 0.78, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.49) and torso touch ( t (40) = 2.23, P  = 0.031; Hedges’ g difference of 0.84, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.58; Supplementary Fig. 17 ). Touching the arm resulted in lower mental health compared with physical health benefits ( t (37) = 2.29, P  = 0.028, Hedges’ g difference of −0.35, 95% CI −0.65 to −0.05). Furthermore, we found a significantly increased physical health benefit when the head was touched as opposed to the torso ( t (37) = 2.10, P  = 0.043, Hedges’ g difference of 0.96, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.86). Thus, head touch such as a face or scalp massage could be especially beneficial.

Directionality

In adults, we tested whether a uni- or bidirectional application of touch mattered. The large majority of touch was applied unidirectionally ( k  = 442 of 469 effects). Unidirectional touch had higher health benefits ( t (101) = 2.17, P  = 0.032, Hedges’ g difference of 0.30, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.58) than bidirectional touch. Specifically, mental health benefits were higher in unidirectional touch ( t (99) = 2.33, P  = 0.022, Hedges’ g difference of 0.46, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.66).

Study location

For adults, we found significantly stronger health benefits of touch in South American compared with North American cohorts ( t (95) = 2.03, P  = 0.046, Hedges’ g difference of 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.73) and European cohorts ( t (95) = 2.22, P  = 0.029, Hedges’ g difference of 0.36, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.68). For newborns, we found weaker effects in North American cohorts compared to Asian ( t (55) = 2.28, P  = 0.026, Hedges’ g difference of −0.37, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.05) and European cohorts ( t (55) = 2.36, P  = 0.022, Hedges’ g difference of −0.40, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.06). Investigating the interaction with mental and physical health benefits did not reveal any effects of study location in both meta-analyses (Supplementary Fig. 18 ).

Systematic review of studies without effect sizes

All studies where effect size data could not be obtained or that did not meet the meta-analysis inclusion criteria can be found on the OSF project 12 in the file ‘Study_lists_final_revised.xlsx’ (sheet ‘Studies_without_effect_sizes’). Specific reasons for exclusion are furthermore documented in Supplementary Table 2 . For human health outcomes assessed across 56 studies and n  = 2,438 individuals, interventions mostly comprised massage therapy ( k  = 86 health outcomes) and kangaroo care ( k  = 33 health outcomes). For datasets where no effect size could be computed, 90.0% of mental health and 84.3% of physical health parameters were positively impacted by touch. Positive impact of touch did not differ between types of touch interventions. These results match well with the observations of the meta-analysis of a highly positive benefit of touch overall, irrespective of whether a massage or any other intervention is applied.

We also assessed health outcomes in animals across 19 studies and n  = 911 subjects. Most research was conducted in rodents. Animals that received touch were rats (ten studies, k  = 16 health outcomes), mice (four studies, k  = 7 health outcomes), macaques (two studies, k  = 3 health outcomes), cats (one study, k  = 3 health outcomes), lambs (one study, k  = 2 health outcomes) and coral reef fish (one study, k  = 1 health outcome). Touch interventions mostly comprised stroking ( k  = 13 health outcomes) and tickling ( k  = 10 health outcomes). For animal studies, 71.4% of effects showed benefits to mental health-like parameters and 81.8% showed positive physical health effects. We thus found strong evidence that touch interventions, which were mostly conducted by humans (16 studies with human touch versus 3 studies with object touch), had positive health effects in animal species as well.

The key aim of the present study was twofold: (1) to provide an estimate of the effect size of touch interventions and (2) to disambiguate moderating factors to potentially tailor future interventions more precisely. Overall, touch interventions were beneficial for both physical and mental health, with a medium effect size. Our work illustrates that touch interventions are best suited for reducing pain, depression and anxiety in adults and children as well as for increasing weight gain in newborns. These findings are in line with previous meta-analyses on this topic, supporting their conclusions and their robustness to the addition of more datasets. One limitation of previous meta-analyses is that they focused on specific health outcomes or populations, despite primary studies often reporting effects on multiple health parameters simultaneously (for example, ref. 13 focusing on neck and shoulder pain and ref. 14 focusing on massage therapy in preterms). To our knowledge, only ref. 5 provides a multivariate picture for a large number of dependent variables. However, this study analysed their data in separate random effects models that did not account for multivariate reporting nor for the multilevel structure of the data, as such approaches have only become available recently. Thus, in addition to adding a substantial amount of new data, our statistical approach provides a more accurate depiction of effect size estimates. Additionally, our study investigated a variety of moderating effects that did not reach significance (for example, sex ratio, mean age or intervention duration) or were not considered (for example, the benefits of robot or object touch) in previous meta-analyses in relation to touch intervention efficacy 5 , probably because of the small number of studies with information on these moderators in the past. Owing to our large-scale approach, we reached high statistical power for many moderator analyses. Finally, previous meta-analyses on this topic exclusively focused on massage therapy in adults or kangaroo care in newborns 15 , leaving out a large number of interventions that are being carried out in research as well as in everyday life to improve well-being. Incorporating these studies into our study, we found that, in general, both massages and other types of touch, such as gentle touch, stroking or kangaroo care, showed similar health benefits.

While it seems to be less critical which touch intervention is applied, the frequency of interventions seems to matter. More sessions were positively associated with the improvement of trait outcomes such as depression and anxiety but also pain reductions in adults. In contrast to session number, increasing the duration of individual sessions did not improve health effects. In fact, we found some indications of negative relationships in adults for cortisol and blood pressure. This could be due to habituating effects of touch on the sympathetic nervous system and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, ultimately resulting in diminished effects with longer exposure, or decreased pleasantness ratings of affective touch with increasing duration 16 . For newborns, we could not support previous notions that the duration of the touch intervention is linked to benefits in weight gain 17 . Thus, an ideal intervention protocol does not seem to have to be excessively long. It should be noted that very few interventions lasted less than 5 min, and it therefore remains unclear whether very short interventions have the same effect.

A critical issue highlighted in the pandemic was the lack of touch due to social restrictions 18 . To accommodate the need for touch in individuals with small social networks (for example, institutionalized or isolated individuals), touch interventions using objects/robots have been explored in the past (for a review, see ref. 11 ). We show here that touch interactions outside of the human–human domain are beneficial for mental and physical health outcomes. Importantly, object/robot touch was not as effective in improving mental health as human-applied touch. A sub-analysis of missing skin-to-skin contact among humans indicated that mental health effects of touch might be mediated by the presence of skin-to-skin contact. Thus, it seems profitable to include skin-to-skin contact in future touch interventions, in line with previous findings in newborns 19 . In robots, recent advancements in synthetic skin 20 should be investigated further in this regard. It should be noted that, although we did not observe significant differences in physical health benefits between human–human and human–object touch, the variability of effect sizes was higher in human–object touch. The conditions enabling object or robot interactions to improve well-being should therefore be explored in more detail in the future.

Touch was beneficial for both healthy and clinical cohorts. These data are critical as most previous meta-analytic research has focused on individuals diagnosed with clinical disorders (for example, ref. 6 ). For mental health outcomes, we found larger effects in clinical cohorts. A possible reason could relate to increased touch wanting 21 in patients. For example, loneliness often co-occurs with chronic illnesses 22 , which are linked to depressed mood and feelings of anxiety 23 . Touch can be used to counteract this negative development 24 , 25 . In adults and children, knowing the toucher did not influence health benefits. In contrast, familiarity affected overall health benefits in newborns, with parental touch being more beneficial than touch applied by medical staff. Previous studies have suggested that early skin-to-skin contact and exposure to maternal odour is critical for a newborn’s ability to adapt to a new environment 26 , supporting the notion that parental care is difficult to substitute in this time period.

With respect to age-related effects, our data further suggest that increasing age was associated with a higher benefit through touch for systolic blood pressure. These findings could potentially be attributed to higher basal blood pressure 27 with increasing age, allowing for a stronger modulation of this parameter. For sex differences, our study provides some evidence that there are differences between women and men with respect to health benefits of touch. Overall, research on sex differences in touch processing is relatively sparse (but see refs. 28 , 29 ). Our results suggest that buffering effects against physiological stress are stronger in women. This is in line with increased buffering effects of hugs in women compared with men 30 . The female-biased primary research in adults, however, begs for more research in men or non-binary individuals. Unfortunately, our study could not dive deeper into this topic as health benefits broken down by sex or gender were almost never provided. Recent research has demonstrated that sensory pleasantness is affected by sex and that this also interacts with the familiarity of the other person in the touching dyad 29 , 31 . In general, contextual factors such as sex and gender or the relationship of the touching dyad, differences in cultural background or internal states such as stress have been demonstrated to be highly influential in the perception of affective touch and are thus relevant to maximizing the pleasantness and ultimately the health benefits of touch interactions 32 , 33 , 34 . As a positive personal relationship within the touching dyad is paramount to induce positive health effects, future research applying robot touch to promote well-being should therefore not only explore synthetic skin options but also focus on improving robots as social agents that form a close relationship with the person receiving the touch 35 .

As part of the systematic review, we also assessed the effects of touch interventions in non-human animals. Mimicking the results of the meta-analysis in humans, beneficial effects of touch in animals were comparably strong for mental health-like and physical health outcomes. This may inform interventions to promote animal welfare in the context of animal experiments 36 , farming 37 and pets 38 . While most studies investigated effects in rodents, which are mostly used as laboratory animals, these results probably transfer to livestock and common pets as well. Indeed, touch was beneficial in lambs, fish and cats 39 , 40 , 41 . The positive impact of human touch in rodents also allows for future mechanistic studies in animal models to investigate how interventions such as tickling or stroking modulate hormonal and neuronal responses to touch in the brain. Furthermore, the commonly proposed oxytocin hypothesis can be causally investigated in these animal models through, for example, optogenetic or chemogenetic techniques 42 . We believe that such translational approaches will further help in optimizing future interventions in humans by uncovering the underlying mechanisms and brain circuits involved in touch.

Our results offer many promising avenues to improve future touch interventions, but they also need to be discussed in light of their limitations. While the majority of findings showed robust health benefits of touch interventions across moderators when compared with a null effect, post hoc tests of, for example, familiarity effects in newborns or mental health benefit differences between human and object touch only barely reached significance. Since we computed a large number of statistical tests in the present study, there is a risk that these results are false positives. We hope that researchers in this field are stimulated by these intriguing results and target these questions by primary research through controlled experimental designs within a well-powered study. Furthermore, the presence of small-study bias in both meta-analyses is indicative that the effect size estimates presented here might be overestimated as null results are often unpublished. We want to stress however that this bias is probably reduced by the multivariate reporting of primary studies. Most studies that reported on multiple health outcomes only showed significant findings for one or two among many. Thus, the multivariate nature of primary research in this field allowed us to include many non-significant findings in the present study. Another limitation pertains to the fact that we only included articles in languages mostly spoken in Western countries. As a large body of evidence comes from Asian countries, it could be that primary research was published in languages other than specified in the inclusion criteria. Thus, despite the large and inclusive nature of our study, some studies could have been missed regardless. Another factor that could not be accounted for in our meta-analysis was that an important prerequisite for touch to be beneficial is its perceived pleasantness. The level of pleasantness associated with being touched is modulated by several parameters 34 including cultural acceptability 43 , perceived humanness 44 or a need for touch 45 , which could explain the observed differences for certain moderators, such as human–human versus robot–human interaction. Moreover, the fact that secondary categorical moderators could not be investigated with respect to specific health outcomes, owing to the lack of data points, limits the specificity of our conclusions in this regard. It thus remains unclear whether, for example, a decreased mental health benefit in the absence of skin-to-skin contact is linked mostly to decreased anxiolytic effects, changes in positive/negative affect or something else. Since these health outcomes are however highly correlated 46 , it is likely that such effects are driven by multiple health outcomes. Similarly, it is important to note that our conclusions mainly refer to outcomes measured close to the touch intervention as we did not include long-term outcomes. Finally, it needs to be noted that blinding towards the experimental condition is essentially impossible in touch interventions. Although we compared the touch intervention with other interventions, such as relaxation therapy, as control whenever possible, contributions of placebo effects cannot be ruled out.

In conclusion, we show clear evidence that touch interventions are beneficial across a large number of both physical and mental health outcomes, for both healthy and clinical cohorts, and for all ages. These benefits, while influenced in their magnitude by study cohorts and intervention characteristics, were robustly present, promoting the conclusion that touch interventions can be systematically employed across the population to preserve and improve our health.

Open science practices

All data and code are accessible in the corresponding OSF project 12 . The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022304281) before the start of data collection. We deviated from the pre-registered plan as follows:

Deviation 1: During our initial screening for the systematic review, we were confronted with a large number of potential health outcomes to look at. This observation of multivariate outcomes led us to register an amendment during data collection (but before any effect size or moderator screening). In doing so, we aimed to additionally extract meta-analytic effects for a more quantitative assessment of our review question that can account for multivariate data reporting and dependencies of effects within the same study. Furthermore, as we noted a severe lack of studies with respect to health outcomes for animals during the inclusion assessment for the systematic review, we decided that the meta-analysis would only focus on outcomes that could be meaningfully analysed on the meta-analytic level and therefore only included health outcomes of human participants.

Deviation 2: In the pre-registration, we did not explicitly exclude non-randomized trials. Since an explicit use of non-randomization for group allocation significantly increases the risk of bias, we decided to exclude them a posteriori from data analysis.

Deviation 3: In the pre-registration, we outlined a tertiary moderator level, namely benefits of touch application versus touch reception. This level was ignored since no included study specifically investigated the benefits of touch application by itself.

Deviation 4: In the pre-registration, we suggested using the RoBMA function 47 to provide a Bayesian framework that allows for a more accurate assessment of publication bias beyond small-study bias. Unfortunately, neither multilevel nor multivariate data structures are supported by the RoBMA function, to our knowledge. For this reason, we did not further pursue this analysis, as the hierarchical nature of the data would not be accounted for.

Deviation 5: Beyond the pre-registered inclusion and exclusion criteria, we also excluded dissertations owing to their lack of peer review.

Deviation 6: In the pre-registration, we stated to investigate the impact of sex of the person applying the touch. This moderator was not further analysed, as this information was rarely given and the individuals applying the touch were almost exclusively women (7 males, 24 mixed and 85 females in studies on adults/children; 3 males, 17 mixed and 80 females in studied on newborns).

Deviation 7: The time span of the touch intervention as assessed by subtracting the final day of the intervention from the first day was not investigated further owing to its very high correlation with the number of sessions ( r (461) = 0.81 in the adult meta-analysis, r (145) = 0.84 in the newborn meta-analysis).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To be included in the systematic review, studies had to investigate the relationship between at least one health outcome (physical and/or mental) in humans or animals and a touch intervention, include explicit physical touch by another human, animal or object as part of an intervention and include an experimental and control condition/group that are differentiated by touch alone. Of note, as a result of this selection process, no animal-to-animal touch intervention study was included, as they never featured a proper no-touch control. Human touch was always explicit touch by a human (that is, no brushes or other tools), either with or without skin-to-skin contact. Regarding the included health outcomes, we aimed to be as broad as possible but excluded parameters such as neurophysiological responses or pleasantness ratings after touch application as they do not reflect health outcomes. All included studies in the meta-analysis and systematic review 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226 , 227 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 , 252 , 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 , 259 , 260 , 261 , 262 , 263 are listed in Supplementary Table 2 . All excluded studies are listed in Supplementary Table 3 , together with a reason for exclusion. We then applied a two-step process: First, we identified all potential health outcomes and extracted qualitative information on those outcomes (for example, direction of effect). Second, we extracted quantitative information from all possible outcomes (for example, effect sizes). The meta-analysis additionally required a between-subjects design (to clearly distinguish touch from no-touch effects and owing to missing information about the correlation between repeated measurements 264 ). Studies that explicitly did not apply a randomized protocol were excluded before further analysis to reduce risk of bias. The full study lists for excluded and included studies can be found in the OSF project 12 in the file ‘Study_lists_final_revised.xlsx’. In terms of the time frame, we conducted an open-start search of studies until 2022 and identified studies conducted between 1965 and 2022.

Data collection

We used Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science for our literature search, with no limitations regarding the publication date and using pre-specified search queries (see Supplementary Information for the exact keywords used). All procedures were in accordance with the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines 265 . Articles were assessed in French, Dutch, German or English. The above databases were searched from 2 December 2021 until 1 October 2022. Two independent coders evaluated each paper against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inconsistencies between coders were checked and resolved by J.P. and H.H. Studies excluded/included for the review and meta-analysis can be found on the OSF project.

Search queries

We used the following keywords to search the chosen databases. Agents (human versus animal versus object versus robot) and touch outcome (physical versus mental) were searched separately together with keywords searching for touch.

TOUCH: Touch OR Social OR Affective OR Contact OR Tactile interaction OR Hug OR Massage OR Embrace OR Kiss OR Cradling OR Stroking OR Haptic interaction OR tickling

AGENT: Object OR Robot OR human OR animal OR rodent OR primate

MENTAL OUTCOME: Health OR mood OR Depression OR Loneliness OR happiness OR life satisfaction OR Mental Disorder OR well-being OR welfare OR dementia OR psychological OR psychiatric OR anxiety OR Distress

PHYSICAL OUTCOME: Health OR Stress OR Pain OR cardiovascular health OR infection risk OR immune response OR blood pressure OR heart rate

Data extraction and preparation

Data extraction began on 10 October 2022 and was concluded on 25 February 2023. J.P. and H.H. oversaw the data collection process, and checked and resolved all inconsistencies between coders.

Health benefits of touch were always coded by positive summary effects, whereas adverse health effects of touch were represented by negative summary effects. If multiple time points were measured for the same outcome on the same day after a single touch intervention, we extracted the peak effect size (in either the positive or negative direction). If the touch intervention occurred multiple times and health outcomes were assessed for each time point, we extracted data points separately. However, we only extracted immediate effects, as long-term effects not controlled through the experimental conditions could be due to influences other than the initial touch intervention. Measurements assessing long-term effects without explicit touch sessions in the breaks were excluded for the same reason. Common control groups for touch interventions comprised active (for example, relaxation therapy) as well as passive control groups (for example, standard medical care). In the case of multiple control groups, we always contrasted the touch group to the group that most closely matched the touch condition (for example, relaxation therapy was preferred over standard medical care). We extracted information from all moderators listed in the pre-registration (Supplementary Table 4 ). A list of included and excluded health outcomes is presented in Supplementary Table 5 . Authors of studies with possible effects but missing information to calculate those effects were contacted via email and asked to provide the missing data (response rate 35.7%).

After finalizing the list of included studies for the systematic review, we added columns for moderators and the coding schema for our meta-analysis per our updated registration. Then, each study was assessed for its eligibility in the meta-analysis by two independent coders (J.P., H.H., K.F. or F.M.). To this end, all coders followed an a priori specified procedure: First, the PDF was skimmed for possible effects to extract, and the study was excluded if no PDF was available or the study was in a language different from the ones specified in ‘ Data collection ’. Effects from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted from all studies listing descriptive values or statistical parameters to calculate effect sizes. A website 266 was used to convert descriptive and statistical values available in the included studies (means and standard deviations/standard errors/confidence intervals, sample sizes, F values, t values, t test P values or frequencies) into Cohen’s d , which were then converted in Hedges’ g . If only P value thresholds were reported (for example, P  < 0.01), we used this, most conservative, value as the P value to calculate the effect size (for example, P  = 0.01). If only the total sample size was given but that number was even and the participants were randomly assigned to each group, we assumed equal sample sizes for each group. If delta change scores (for example, pre- to post-touch intervention) were reported, we used those over post-touch only scores. In case frequencies were 0 when frequency tables were used to determine effect sizes, we used a value of 0.5 as a substitute to calculate the effect (the default setting in the ‘metafor’ function 267 ). From these data, Hedges’ g and its variance could be derived. Effect sizes were always computed between the experimental and the control group.

Statistical analysis and risk of bias assessment

Owing to the lack of identified studies, health benefits to animals were not included as part of the statistical analysis. One meta-analysis was performed for adults, adolescents and children, as outcomes were highly comparable. We refer to this meta-analysis as the adult meta-analysis, as children/adolescent cohorts were only targeted in a minority of studies. A separate meta-analysis was performed for newborns, as their health outcomes differed substantially from any other age group.

Data were analysed using R (version 4.2.2) with the ‘rma.mv’ function from the ‘metafor’ package 267 in a multistep, multivariate and multilevel fashion.

We calculated an overall effect of touch interventions across all studies, cohorts and health outcomes. To account for the hierarchical structure of the data, we used a multilevel structure with random effects at the study, cohort and effects level. Furthermore, we calculated the variance–covariance matrix of all data points to account for the dependencies of measured effects within each individual cohort and study. The variance–covariance matrix was calculated by default with an assumed correlation of effect sizes within each cohort of ρ  = 0.6. As ρ needed to be assumed, sensitivity analyses for all computed effect estimates were conducted using correlations between effects of 0, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8. The results of these sensitivity analyses can be found in ref. 12 . No conclusion drawn in the present manuscript was altered by changing the level of ρ . The sensitivity analyses, however, showed that higher assumed correlations lead to more conservative effect size estimates (see Supplementary Figs. 19 and 20 for the adult and newborn meta-analyses, respectively), reducing the type I error risk in general 268 . In addition to these procedures, we used robust variance estimation with cluster-robust inference at the cohort level. This step is recommended to more accurately determine the confidence intervals in complex multivariate models 269 . The data distribution was assumed to be normal, but this was not formally tested.

To determine whether individual effects had a strong influence on our results, we calculated Cook’s distance D . Here, a threshold of D  > 0.5 was used to qualify a study as influential 270 . Heterogeneity in the present study was assessed using Cochran’s Q , which determines whether the extracted effect sizes estimate a common population effect size. Although the Q statistic in the ‘rma.mv’ function accounts for the hierarchical nature of the data, we also quantified the heterogeneity estimator σ ² for each random-effects level to provide a comprehensive overview of heterogeneity indicators. These indicators for all models can be found on the OSF project 12 in the Table ‘Model estimates’. To assess small study bias, we visually inspected the funnel plot and used the standard error as a moderator in the overarching meta-analyses.

Before any sub-group analysis, the overall effect size was used as input for power calculations. While such post hoc power calculations might be limited, we believe that a minimum number of effects to be included in subgroup analyses was necessary to allow for meaningful conclusions. Such medium effect sizes would also probably be the minimum effect sizes of interest for researchers as well as clinical practitioners. Power calculation for random-effects models further requires a sample size for each individual effect as well as an approximation of the expected heterogeneity between studies. For the sample size input, we used the median sample size in each of our studies. For heterogeneity, we assumed a value between medium and high levels of heterogeneity ( I ² = 62.5% 271 ), as moderator analyses typically aim at reducing heterogeneity overall. Subgroups were only further investigated if the number of observed effects achieved ~80% power under these circumstances, to allow for a more robust interpretation of the observed effects (see Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6 for the adult and newborn meta-analysis, respectively). In a next step, we investigated all pre-registered moderators for which sufficient power was detected. We first looked at our primary moderators (mental versus physical health) and how the effect sizes systematically varied as a function of our secondary moderators (for example, human–human or human–object touch, duration, skin-to-skin presence, etc.). We always included random slopes to allow for our moderators to vary with the random effects at our clustering variable, which is recommended in multilevel models to reduce false positives 272 . All statistical tests were performed two-sided. Significance of moderators was determined using omnibus F tests. Effect size differences between moderator levels and their confidence intervals were assessed via t tests.

Post hoc t tests were performed comparing mental and physical health benefits within each interacting moderator (for example, mental versus physical health benefits in cancer patients) and mental or physical health benefits across levels of the interacting moderator (for example, mental health benefits in cancer versus pain patients). The post hoc tests were not pre-registered. Data were visualized using forest plots and orchard plots 273 for categorical moderators and scatter plots for continuous moderators.

For a broad overview of prior work and their biases, risk of bias was assessed for all studies included in both meta-analyses and the systematic review. We assessed the risk of bias for the following parameters:

Bias from randomization, including whether a randomization procedure was performed, whether it was a between- or within-participant design and whether there were any baseline differences for demographic or dependent variables.

Sequence bias resulting from a lack of counterbalancing in within-subject designs.

Performance bias resulting from the participants or experiments not being blinded to the experimental conditions.

Attrition bias resulting from different dropout rates between experimental groups.

Note that four studies in the adult meta-analysis did not explicitly mention randomization as part of their protocol. However, since these studies never showed any baseline differences in all relevant variables (see ‘Risk of Bias’ table on the OSF project ) , we assumed that randomization was performed but not mentioned. Sequence bias was of no concern for studies for the meta-analysis since cross-over designs were excluded. It was, however, assessed for studies within the scope of the systematic review. Importantly, performance bias was always high in the adult/children meta-analysis, as blinding of the participants and experimenters to the experimental conditions was not possible owing to the nature of the intervention (touch versus no touch). For studies with newborns and animals, we assessed the performance bias as medium since neither newborns or animals are likely to be aware of being part of an experiment or specific group. An overview of the results is presented in Supplementary Fig. 21 , and the precise assessment for each study can be found on the OSF project 12 in the ‘Risk of Bias’ table.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

All data are available via Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/C8RVW (ref. 12 ). Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

All code is available via Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/C8RVW (ref. 12 ).

Fulkerson, M. The First Sense: a Philosophical Study of Human Touch (MIT Press, 2013).

Farroni, T., Della Longa, L. & Valori, I. The self-regulatory affective touch: a speculative framework for the development of executive functioning. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 43 , 167–173 (2022).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ocklenburg, S. et al. Hugs and kisses—the role of motor preferences and emotional lateralization for hemispheric asymmetries in human social touch. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 95 , 353–360 (2018).

Ardiel, E. L. & Rankin, C. H. The importance of touch in development. Paediatr. Child Health 15 , 153–156 (2010).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moyer, C. A., Rounds, J. & Hannum, J. W. A meta-analysis of massage therapy research. Psychol. Bull. 130 , 3–18 (2004).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lee, S. H., Kim, J. Y., Yeo, S., Kim, S. H. & Lim, S. Meta-analysis of massage therapy on cancer pain. Integr. Cancer Ther. 14 , 297–304 (2015).

LaFollette, M. R., O’Haire, M. E., Cloutier, S. & Gaskill, B. N. A happier rat pack: the impacts of tickling pet store rats on human–animal interactions and rat welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 203 , 92–102 (2018).

Packheiser, J., Michon, F. Eva, C., Fredriksen, K. & Hartmann H. The physical and mental health benefits of social touch: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022304281 (2023).

Lakens, D. Sample size justification. Collabra. Psychol. 8 , 33267 (2022).

Quintana, D. S. A guide for calculating study-level statistical power for meta-analyses. Adv. Meth. Pract. Psychol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221147260 (2023).

Eckstein, M., Mamaev, I., Ditzen, B. & Sailer, U. Calming effects of touch in human, animal, and robotic interaction—scientific state-of-the-art and technical advances. Front. Psychiatry 11 , 555058 (2020).

Packheiser, J. et al. The physical and mental health benefits of affective touch: a comparative systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis. Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/C8RVW (2023).

Kong, L. J. et al. Massage therapy for neck and shoulder pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2013 , 613279 (2013).

Wang, L., He, J. L. & Zhang, X. H. The efficacy of massage on preterm infants: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Perinatol. 30 , 731–738 (2013).

Field, T. Massage therapy research review. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 24 , 19–31 (2016).

Bendas, J., Ree, A., Pabel, L., Sailer, U. & Croy, I. Dynamics of affective habituation to touch differ on the group and individual level. Neuroscience 464 , 44–52 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Charpak, N., Montealegre‐Pomar, A. & Bohorquez, A. Systematic review and meta‐analysis suggest that the duration of Kangaroo mother care has a direct impact on neonatal growth. Acta Paediatr. 110 , 45–59 (2021).

Packheiser, J. et al. A comparison of hugging frequency and its association with momentary mood before and during COVID-19 using ecological momentary assessment. Health Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2198058 (2023).

Whitelaw, A., Heisterkamp, G., Sleath, K., Acolet, D. & Richards, M. Skin to skin contact for very low birthweight infants and their mothers. Arch. Dis. Child. 63 , 1377–1381 (1988).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yogeswaran, N. et al. New materials and advances in making electronic skin for interactive robots. Adv. Robot. 29 , 1359–1373 (2015).

Durkin, J., Jackson, D. & Usher, K. Touch in times of COVID‐19: touch hunger hurts. J. Clin. Nurs. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15488 (2021).

Rokach, A., Lechcier-Kimel, R. & Safarov, A. Loneliness of people with physical disabilities. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 34 , 681–700 (2006).

Palgi, Y. et al. The loneliness pandemic: loneliness and other concomitants of depression, anxiety and their comorbidity during the COVID-19 outbreak. J. Affect. Disord. 275 , 109–111 (2020).

Heatley-Tejada, A., Dunbar, R. I. M. & Montero, M. Physical contact and loneliness: being touched reduces perceptions of loneliness. Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiol. 6 , 292–306 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Packheiser, J. et al. The association of embracing with daily mood and general life satisfaction: an ecological momentary assessment study. J. Nonverbal Behav. 46 , 519–536 (2022).

Porter, R. The biological significance of skin-to-skin contact and maternal odours. Acta Paediatr. 93 , 1560–1562 (2007).

Hawkley, L. C., Masi, C. M., Berry, J. D. & Cacioppo, J. T. Loneliness is a unique predictor of age-related differences in systolic blood pressure. Psychol. Aging 21 , 152–164 (2006).

Russo, V., Ottaviani, C. & Spitoni, G. F. Affective touch: a meta-analysis on sex differences. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 108 , 445–452 (2020).

Schirmer, A. et al. Understanding sex differences in affective touch: sensory pleasantness, social comfort, and precursive experiences. Physiol. Behav. 250 , 113797 (2022).

Berretz, G. et al. Romantic partner embraces reduce cortisol release after acute stress induction in women but not in men. PLoS ONE 17 , e0266887 (2022).

Gazzola, V. et al. Primary somatosensory cortex discriminates affective significance in social touch. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , E1657–E1666 (2012).

Sorokowska, A. et al. Affective interpersonal touch in close relationships: a cross-cultural perspective. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47 , 1705–1721 (2021).

Ravaja, N., Harjunen, V., Ahmed, I., Jacucci, G. & Spapé, M. M. Feeling touched: emotional modulation of somatosensory potentials to interpersonal touch. Sci. Rep. 7 , 40504 (2017).

Saarinen, A., Harjunen, V., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Jääskeläinen, I. P. & Ravaja, N. Social touch experience in different contexts: a review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 131 , 360–372 (2021).

Huisman, G. Social touch technology: a survey of haptic technology for social touch. IEEE Trans. Haptics 10 , 391–408 (2017).

Lewejohann, L., Schwabe, K., Häger, C. & Jirkof, P. Impulse for animal welfare outside the experiment. Lab. Anim. https://doi.org/10.17169/REFUBIUM-26765 (2020).

Sørensen, J. T., Sandøe, P. & Halberg, N. Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered at farm level: the idea of an ethical account for livestock farming. Acta Agric. Scand. A 51 , 11–16 (2001).

Google Scholar  

Verga, M. & Michelazzi, M. Companion animal welfare and possible implications on the human–pet relationship. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 8 , 231–240 (2009).

Coulon, M. et al. Do lambs perceive regular human stroking as pleasant? Behavior and heart rate variability analyses. PLoS ONE 10 , e0118617 (2015).

Soares, M. C., Oliveira, R. F., Ros, A. F. H., Grutter, A. S. & Bshary, R. Tactile stimulation lowers stress in fish. Nat. Commun. 2 , 534 (2011).

Gourkow, N., Hamon, S. C. & Phillips, C. J. C. Effect of gentle stroking and vocalization on behaviour, mucosal immunity and upper respiratory disease in anxious shelter cats. Prev. Vet. Med. 117 , 266–275 (2014).

Oliveira, V. E. et al. Oxytocin and vasopressin within the ventral and dorsal lateral septum modulate aggression in female rats. Nat. Commun. 12 , 2900 (2021).

Burleson, M. H., Roberts, N. A., Coon, D. W. & Soto, J. A. Perceived cultural acceptability and comfort with affectionate touch: differences between Mexican Americans and European Americans. J. Soc. Personal. Relatsh. 36 , 1000–1022 (2019).

Wijaya, M. et al. The human ‘feel’ of touch contributes to its perceived pleasantness. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 46 , 155–171 (2020).

Golaya, S. Touch-hunger: an unexplored consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 43 , 362–363 (2021).

Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., Zhang, Y. & Yim, F. H. K. Anger, anxiety, depression, and negative affect: convergent or divergent? J. Vocat. Behav. 110 , 186–202 (2019).

Maier, M., Bartoš, F. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. Robust Bayesian meta-analysis: addressing publication bias with model-averaging. Psychol. Methods 28 , 107–122 (2022).

Ahles, T. A. et al. Massage therapy for patients undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation. J. Pain. Symptom Manag. 18 , 157–163 (1999).

Albert, N. M. et al. A randomized trial of massage therapy after heart surgery. Heart Lung 38 , 480–490 (2009).

Ang, J. Y. et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of massage therapy on the immune system of preterm infants. Pediatrics 130 , e1549–e1558 (2012).

Arditi, H., Feldman, R. & Eidelman, A. I. Effects of human contact and vagal regulation on pain reactivity and visual attention in newborns. Dev. Psychobiol. 48 , 561–573 (2006).

Arora, J., Kumar, A. & Ramji, S. Effect of oil massage on growth and neurobehavior in very low birth weight preterm neonates. Indian Pediatr. 42 , 1092–1100 (2005).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Asadollahi, M., Jabraeili, M., Mahallei, M., Asgari Jafarabadi, M. & Ebrahimi, S. Effects of gentle human touch and field massage on urine cortisol level in premature infants: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. J. Caring Sci. 5 , 187–194 (2016).

Basiri-Moghadam, M., Basiri-Moghadam, K., Kianmehr, M. & Jani, S. The effect of massage on neonatal jaundice in stable preterm newborn infants: a randomized controlled trial. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 65 , 602–606 (2015).

Bauer, B. A. et al. Effect of massage therapy on pain, anxiety, and tension after cardiac surgery: a randomized study. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 16 , 70–75 (2010).

Beijers, R., Cillessen, L. & Zijlmans, M. A. C. An experimental study on mother-infant skin-to-skin contact in full-terms. Infant Behav. Dev. 43 , 58–65 (2016).

Bennett, S. et al. Acute effects of traditional Thai massage on cortisol levels, arterial blood pressure and stress perception in academic stress condition: a single blind randomised controlled trial. J. Bodyw. Mov. Therapies 20 , 286–292 (2016).

Bergman, N., Linley, L. & Fawcus, S. Randomized controlled trial of skin-to-skin contact from birth versus conventional incubator for physiological stabilization in 1200- to 2199-gram newborns. Acta Paediatr. 93 , 779–785 (2004).

Bigelow, A., Power, M., MacLellan‐Peters, J., Alex, M. & McDonald, C. Effect of mother/infant skin‐to‐skin contact on postpartum depressive symptoms and maternal physiological stress. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 41 , 369–382 (2012).

Billhult, A., Bergbom, I. & Stener-Victorin, E. Massage relieves nausea in women with breast cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 13 , 53–57 (2007).

Billhult, A., Lindholm, C., Gunnarsson, R. & Stener-Victorin, E. The effect of massage on cellular immunity, endocrine and psychological factors in women with breast cancer—a randomized controlled clinical trial. Auton. Neurosci. 140 , 88–95 (2008).

Braun, L. A. et al. Massage therapy for cardiac surgery patients—a randomized trial. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 144 , 1453–1459 (2012).

Cabibihan, J.-J. & Chauhan, S. S. Physiological responses to affective tele-touch during induced emotional stimuli. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 8 , 108–118 (2017).

Campeau, M.-P. et al. Impact of massage therapy on anxiety levels in patients undergoing radiation therapy: randomized controlled trial. J. Soc. Integr. Oncol. 5 , 133–138 (2007).

Can, Ş. & Kaya, H. The effects of yakson or gentle human touch training given to mothers with preterm babies on attachment levels and the responses of the baby: a randomized controlled trial. Health Care Women Int. 43 , 479–498 (2021).

Carfoot, S., Williamson, P. & Dickson, R. A randomised controlled trial in the north of England examining the effects of skin-to-skin care on breast feeding. Midwifery 21 , 71–79 (2005).

Castral, T. C., Warnock, F., Leite, A. M., Haas, V. J. & Scochi, C. G. S. The effects of skin-to-skin contact during acute pain in preterm newborns. Eur. J. Pain. 12 , 464–471 (2008).

Cattaneo, A. et al. Kangaroo mother care for low birthweight infants: a randomized controlled trial in different settings. Acta Paediatr. 87 , 976–985 (1998).

Charpak, N., Ruiz-Peláez, J. G. & Charpak, Y. Rey-Martinez kangaroo mother program: an alternative way of caring for low birth weight infants? One year mortality in a two cohort study. Pediatrics 94 , 804–810 (1994).

Chermont, A. G., Falcão, L. F. M., de Souza Silva, E. H. L., de Cássia Xavier Balda, R. & Guinsburg, R. Skin-to-skin contact and/or oral 25% dextrose for procedural pain relief for term newborn infants. Pediatrics 124 , e1101–e1107 (2009).

Chi Luong, K., Long Nguyen, T., Huynh Thi, D. H., Carrara, H. P. O. & Bergman, N. J. Newly born low birthweight infants stabilise better in skin-to-skin contact than when separated from their mothers: a randomised controlled trial. Acta Paediatr. 105 , 381–390 (2016).

Cho, E.-S. et al. The effects of kangaroo care in the neonatal intensive care unit on the physiological functions of preterm infants, maternal–infant attachment, and maternal stress. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 31 , 430–438 (2016).

Choi, H. et al. The effects of massage therapy on physical growth and gastrointestinal function in premature infants: a pilot study. J. Child Health Care 20 , 394–404 (2016).

Choudhary, M. et al. To study the effect of Kangaroo mother care on pain response in preterm neonates and to determine the behavioral and physiological responses to painful stimuli in preterm neonates: a study from western Rajasthan. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 29 , 826–831 (2016).

Christensson, K. et al. Temperature, metabolic adaptation and crying in healthy full-term newborns cared for skin-to-skin or in a cot. Acta Paediatr. 81 , 488–493 (1992).

Cloutier, S. & Newberry, R. C. Use of a conditioning technique to reduce stress associated with repeated intra-peritoneal injections in laboratory rats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 112 , 158–173 (2008).

Cloutier, S., Wahl, K., Baker, C. & Newberry, R. C. The social buffering effect of playful handling on responses to repeated intraperitoneal injections in laboratory rats. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 53 , 168–173 (2014).

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cloutier, S., Wahl, K. L., Panksepp, J. & Newberry, R. C. Playful handling of laboratory rats is more beneficial when applied before than after routine injections. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 164 , 81–90 (2015).

Cong, X. et al. Effects of skin-to-skin contact on autonomic pain responses in preterm infants. J. Pain. 13 , 636–645 (2012).

Cong, X., Ludington-Hoe, S. M., McCain, G. & Fu, P. Kangaroo care modifies preterm infant heart rate variability in response to heel stick pain: pilot study. Early Hum. Dev. 85 , 561–567 (2009).

Cong, X., Ludington-Hoe, S. M. & Walsh, S. Randomized crossover trial of kangaroo care to reduce biobehavioral pain responses in preterm infants: a pilot study. Biol. Res. Nurs. 13 , 204–216 (2011).

Costa, R. et al. Tactile stimulation of adult rats modulates hormonal responses, depression-like behaviors, and memory impairment induced by chronic mild stress: role of angiotensin II. Behav. Brain Res. 379 , 112250 (2020).

Cutshall, S. M. et al. Effect of massage therapy on pain, anxiety, and tension in cardiac surgical patients: a pilot study. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 16 , 92–95 (2010).

Dalili, H., Sheikhi, S., Shariat, M. & Haghnazarian, E. Effects of baby massage on neonatal jaundice in healthy Iranian infants: a pilot study. Infant Behav. Dev. 42 , 22–26 (2016).

Diego, M. A., Field, T. & Hernandez-Reif, M. Vagal activity, gastric motility, and weight gain in massaged preterm neonates. J. Pediatr. 147 , 50–55 (2005).

Diego, M. A., Field, T. & Hernandez-Reif, M. Temperature increases in preterm infants during massage therapy. Infant Behav. Dev. 31 , 149–152 (2008).

Diego, M. A. et al. Preterm infant massage elicits consistent increases in vagal activity and gastric motility that are associated with greater weight gain. Acta Paediatr. 96 , 1588–1591 (2007).

Diego, M. A. et al. Spinal cord patients benefit from massage therapy. Int. J. Neurosci. 112 , 133–142 (2002).

Diego, M. A. et al. Aggressive adolescents benefit from massage therapy. Adolescence 37 , 597–607 (2002).

Diego, M. A. et al. HIV adolescents show improved immune function following massage therapy. Int. J. Neurosci. 106 , 35–45 (2001).

Dieter, J. N. I., Field, T., Hernandez-Reif, M., Emory, E. K. & Redzepi, M. Stable preterm infants gain more weight and sleep less after five days of massage therapy. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 28 , 403–411 (2003).

Ditzen, B. et al. Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 32 , 565–574 (2007).

Dreisoerner, A. et al. Self-soothing touch and being hugged reduce cortisol responses to stress: a randomized controlled trial on stress, physical touch, and social identity. Compr. Psychoneuroendocrinol. 8 , 100091 (2021).

Eaton, M., Mitchell-Bonair, I. L. & Friedmann, E. The effect of touch on nutritional intake of chronic organic brain syndrome patients. J. Gerontol. 41 , 611–616 (1986).

Edens, J. L., Larkin, K. T. & Abel, J. L. The effect of social support and physical touch on cardiovascular reactions to mental stress. J. Psychosom. Res. 36 , 371–382 (1992).

El-Farrash, R. A. et al. Longer duration of kangaroo care improves neurobehavioral performance and feeding in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr. Res. 87 , 683–688 (2020).

Erlandsson, K., Dsilna, A., Fagerberg, I. & Christensson, K. Skin-to-skin care with the father after cesarean birth and its effect on newborn crying and prefeeding behavior. Birth 34 , 105–114 (2007).

Escalona, A., Field, T., Singer-Strunck, R., Cullen, C. & Hartshorn, K. Brief report: improvements in the behavior of children with autism following massage therapy. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 31 , 513–516 (2001).

Fattah, M. A. & Hamdy, B. Pulmonary functions of children with asthma improve following massage therapy. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 17 , 1065–1068 (2011).

Feldman, R. & Eidelman, A. I. Skin-to-skin contact (kangaroo care) accelerates autonomic and neurobehavioural maturation in preterm infants. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 45 , 274–281 (2003).

Feldman, R., Eidelman, A. I., Sirota, L. & Weller, A. Comparison of skin-to-skin (kangaroo) and traditional care: parenting outcomes and preterm infant development. Pediatrics 110 , 16–26 (2002).

Feldman, R., Singer, M. & Zagoory, O. Touch attenuates infants’ physiological reactivity to stress. Dev. Sci. 13 , 271–278 (2010).

Feldman, R., Weller, A., Sirota, L. & Eidelman, A. I. Testing a family intervention hypothesis: the contribution of mother–infant skin-to-skin contact (kangaroo care) to family interaction, proximity, and touch. J. Fam. Psychol. 17 , 94–107 (2003).

Ferber, S. G. et al. Massage therapy by mothers and trained professionals enhances weight gain in preterm infants. Early Hum. Dev. 67 , 37–45 (2002).

Ferber, S. G. & Makhoul, I. R. The effect of skin-to-skin contact (kangaroo care) shortly after birth on the neurobehavioral responses of the term newborn: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 113 , 858–865 (2004).

Ferreira, A. M. & Bergamasco, N. H. P. Behavioral analysis of preterm neonates included in a tactile and kinesthetic stimulation program during hospitalization. Rev. Bras. Fisioter. 14 , 141–148 (2010).

Fidanza, F., Polimeni, E., Pierangeli, V. & Martini, M. A better touch: C-tactile fibers related activity is associated to pain reduction during temporal summation of second pain. J. Pain. 22 , 567–576 (2021).

Field, T. et al. Leukemia immune changes following massage therapy. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 5 , 271–274 (2001).

Field, T. et al. Benefits of combining massage therapy with group interpersonal psychotherapy in prenatally depressed women. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 13 , 297–303 (2009).

Field, T., Delage, J. & Hernandez-Reif, M. Movement and massage therapy reduce fibromyalgia pain. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 7 , 49–52 (2003).

Field, T. et al. Fibromyalgia pain and substance P decrease and sleep improves after massage therapy. J. Clin. Rheumatol. 8 , 72–76 (2002).

Field, T., Diego, M., Gonzalez, G. & Funk, C. G. Neck arthritis pain is reduced and range of motion is increased by massage therapy. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 20 , 219–223 (2014).

Field, T., Diego, M., Hernandez-Reif, M., Deeds, O. & Figueiredo, B. Pregnancy massage reduces prematurity, low birthweight and postpartum depression. Infant Behav. Dev. 32 , 454–460 (2009).

Field, T. et al. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 increased in preterm neonates following massage therapy. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 29 , 463–466 (2008).

Field, T. et al. Yoga and massage therapy reduce prenatal depression and prematurity. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 16 , 204–209 (2012).

Field, T., Diego, M., Hernandez-Reif, M., Schanberg, S. & Kuhn, C. Massage therapy effects on depressed pregnant women. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol. 25 , 115–122 (2004).

Field, T., Diego, M., Hernandez-Reif, M. & Shea, J. Hand arthritis pain is reduced by massage therapy. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 11 , 21–24 (2007).

Field, T., Gonzalez, G., Diego, M. & Mindell, J. Mothers massaging their newborns with lotion versus no lotion enhances mothers’ and newborns’ sleep. Infant Behav. Dev. 45 , 31–37 (2016).

Field, T. et al. Children with asthma have improved pulmonary functions after massage therapy. J. Pediatr. 132 , 854–858 (1998).

Field, T., Hernandez-Reif, M., Diego, M. & Fraser, M. Lower back pain and sleep disturbance are reduced following massage therapy. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 11 , 141–145 (2007).

Field, T. et al. Effects of sexual abuse are lessened by massage therapy. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 1 , 65–69 (1997).

Field, T. et al. Pregnant women benefit from massage therapy. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol. 20 , 31–38 (1999).

Field, T. et al. Juvenilerheumatoid arthritis: benefits from massage therapy. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 22 , 607–617 (1997).

Field, T., Hernandez-Reif, M., Taylor, S., Quintino, O. & Burman, I. Labor pain is reduced by massage therapy. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol. 18 , 286–291 (1997).

Field, T. et al. Massage therapy reduces anxiety and enhances EEG pattern of alertness and math computations. Int. J. Neurosci. 86 , 197–205 (1996).

Field, T. et al. Brief report: autistic children’s attentiveness and responsivity improve after touch therapy. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 27 , 333–338 (1997).

Field, T. M. et al. Tactile/kinesthetic stimulation effects on preterm neonates. Pediatrics 77 , 654–658 (1986).

Field, T. et al. Massage reduces anxiety in child and adolescent psychiatric patients. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 31 , 125–131 (1992).

Field, T. et al. Burn injuries benefit from massage therapy. J. Burn Care Res. 19 , 241–244 (1998).

Filho, F. L. et al. Effect of maternal skin-to-skin contact on decolonization of methicillin-oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus in neonatal intensive care units: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0496-1 (2015).

Forward, J. B., Greuter, N. E., Crisall, S. J. & Lester, H. F. Effect of structured touch and guided imagery for pain and anxiety in elective joint replacement patients—a randomized controlled trial: M-TIJRP. Perm. J. 19 , 18–28 (2015).

Fraser, J. & Ross Kerr, J. Psychophysiological effects of back massage on elderly institutionalized patients. J. Adv. Nurs. 18 , 238–245 (1993).

Frey Law, L. A. et al. Massage reduces pain perception and hyperalgesia in experimental muscle pain: a randomized, controlled trial. J. Pain. 9 , 714–721 (2008).

Gao, H. et al. Effect of repeated kangaroo mother care on repeated procedural pain in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 52 , 1157–1165 (2015).

Garner, B. et al. Pilot study evaluating the effect of massage therapy on stress, anxiety and aggression in a young adult psychiatric inpatient unit. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 42 , 414–422 (2008).

Gathwala, G., Singh, B. & Singh, J. Effect of kangaroo mother care on physical growth, breastfeeding and its acceptability. Trop. Dr. 40 , 199–202 (2010).

Geva, N., Uzefovsky, F. & Levy-Tzedek, S. Touching the social robot PARO reduces pain perception and salivary oxytocin levels. Sci. Rep. 10 , 9814 (2020).

Gitau, R. et al. Acute effects of maternal skin-to-skin contact and massage on saliva cortisol in preterm babies. J. Reprod. Infant Psychol. 20 , 83–88 (2002).

Givi, M. Durability of effect of massage therapy on blood pressure. Int. J. Prev. Med. 4 , 511–516 (2013).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Glover, V., Onozawa, K. & Hodgkinson, A. Benefits of infant massage for mothers with postnatal depression. Semin. Neonatol. 7 , 495–500 (2002).

Gonzalez, A. et al. Weight gain in preterm infants following parent-administered vimala massage: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Perinatol. 26 , 247–252 (2009).

Gray, L., Watt, L. & Blass, E. M. Skin-to-skin contact is analgesic in healthy newborns. Pediatrics 105 , e14 (2000).

Grewen, K. M., Anderson, B. J., Girdler, S. S. & Light, K. C. Warm partner contact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity. Behav. Med. 29 , 123–130 (2003).

Groër, M. W., Hill, J., Wilkinson, J. E. & Stuart, A. Effects of separation and separation with supplemental stroking in BALB/c infant mice. Biol. Res. Nurs. 3 , 119–131 (2002).

Gürol, A. P., Polat, S. & Nuran Akçay, M. Itching, pain, and anxiety levels are reduced with massage therapy in burned adolescents. J. Burn Care Res. 31 , 429–432 (2010).

Haley, S. et al. Tactile/kinesthetic stimulation (TKS) increases tibial speed of sound and urinary osteocalcin (U-MidOC and unOC) in premature infants (29–32 weeks PMA). Bone 51 , 661–666 (2012).

Harris, M., Richards, K. C. & Grando, V. T. The effects of slow-stroke back massage on minutes of nighttime sleep in persons with dementia and sleep disturbances in the nursing home: a pilot study. J. Holist. Nurs. 30 , 255–263 (2012).

Hart, S. et al. Anorexia nervosa symptoms are reduced by massage therapy. Eat. Disord. 9 , 289–299 (2001).

Hattan, J., King, L. & Griffiths, P. The impact of foot massage and guided relaxation following cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Issues Innov. Nurs. Pract. 37 , 199–207 (2002).

Haynes, A. C. et al. A calming hug: design and validation of a tactile aid to ease anxiety. PLoS ONE 17 , e0259838 (2022).

Henricson, M., Ersson, A., Määttä, S., Segesten, K. & Berglund, A.-L. The outcome of tactile touch on stress parameters in intensive care: a randomized controlled trial. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 14 , 244–254 (2008).

Hernandez-Reif, M., Diego, M. & Field, T. Preterm infants show reduced stress behaviors and activity after 5 days of massage therapy. Infant Behav. Dev. 30 , 557–561 (2007).

Hernandez-Reif, M., Dieter, J. N. I., Field, T., Swerdlow, B. & Diego, M. Migraine headaches are reduced by massage therapy. Int. J. Neurosci. 96 , 1–11 (1998).

Hernandez-Reif, M. et al. Natural killer cells and lymphocytes increase in women with breast cancer following massage therapy. Int. J. Neurosci. 115 , 495–510 (2005).

Hernandez-Reif, M. et al. Children with cystic fibrosis benefit from massage therapy. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 24 , 175–181 (1999).

Hernandez-Reif, M., Field, T., Krasnegor, J. & Theakston, H. Lower back pain is reduced and range of motion increased after massage therapy. Int. J. Neurosci. 106 , 131–145 (2001).

Hernandez-Reif, M. et al. High blood pressure and associated symptoms were reduced by massage therapy. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 4 , 31–38 (2000).

Hernandez-Reif, M. et al. Parkinson’s disease symptoms are differentially affected by massage therapy vs. progressive muscle relaxation: a pilot study. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 6 , 177–182 (2002).

Hernandez-Reif, M., Field, T. & Theakston, H. Multiple sclerosis patients benefit from massage therapy. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2 , 168–174 (1998).

Hernandez-Reif, M. et al. Breast cancer patients have improved immune and neuroendocrine functions following massage therapy. J. Psychosom. Res. 57 , 45–52 (2004).

Hertenstein, M. J. & Campos, J. J. Emotion regulation via maternal touch. Infancy 2 , 549–566 (2001).

Hinchcliffe, J. K., Mendl, M. & Robinson, E. S. J. Rat 50 kHz calls reflect graded tickling-induced positive emotion. Curr. Biol. 30 , R1034–R1035 (2020).

Hodgson, N. A. & Andersen, S. The clinical efficacy of reflexology in nursing home residents with dementia. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 14 , 269–275 (2008).

Hoffmann, L. & Krämer, N. C. The persuasive power of robot touch. Behavioral and evaluative consequences of non-functional touch from a robot. PLoS ONE 16 , e0249554 (2021).

Holst, S., Lund, I., Petersson, M. & Uvnäs-Moberg, K. Massage-like stroking influences plasma levels of gastrointestinal hormones, including insulin, and increases weight gain in male rats. Auton. Neurosci. 120 , 73–79 (2005).

Hori, M. et al. Tickling during adolescence alters fear-related and cognitive behaviors in rats after prolonged isolation. Physiol. Behav. 131 , 62–67 (2014).

Hori, M. et al. Effects of repeated tickling on conditioned fear and hormonal responses in socially isolated rats. Neurosci. Lett. 536 , 85–89 (2013).

Hucklenbruch-Rother, E. et al. Delivery room skin-to-skin contact in preterm infants affects long-term expression of stress response genes. Psychoneuroendocrinology 122 , 104883 (2020).

Im, H. & Kim, E. Effect of yakson and gentle human touch versus usual care on urine stress hormones and behaviors in preterm infants: a quasi-experimental study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 46 , 450–458 (2009).

Jain, S., Kumar, P. & McMillan, D. D. Prior leg massage decreases pain responses to heel stick in preterm babies. J. Paediatr. Child Health 42 , 505–508 (2006).

Jane, S.-W. et al. Effects of massage on pain, mood status, relaxation, and sleep in Taiwanese patients with metastatic bone pain: a randomized clinical trial. Pain 152 , 2432–2442 (2011).

Johnston, C. C. et al. Kangaroo mother care diminishes pain from heel lance in very preterm neonates: a crossover trial. BMC Pediatr. 8 , 13 (2008).

Johnston, C. C. et al. Kangaroo care is effective in diminishing pain response in preterm neonates. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 157 , 1084–1088 (2003).

Jung, M. J., Shin, B.-C., Kim, Y.-S., Shin, Y.-I. & Lee, M. S. Is there any difference in the effects of QI therapy (external QIGONG) with and without touching? a pilot study. Int. J. Neurosci. 116 , 1055–1064 (2006).

Kapoor, Y. & Orr, R. Effect of therapeutic massage on pain in patients with dementia. Dementia 16 , 119–125 (2017).

Karagozoglu, S. & Kahve, E. Effects of back massage on chemotherapy-related fatigue and anxiety: supportive care and therapeutic touch in cancer nursing. Appl. Nurs. Res. 26 , 210–217 (2013).

Karbasi, S. A., Golestan, M., Fallah, R., Golshan, M. & Dehghan, Z. Effect of body massage on increase of low birth weight neonates growth parameters: a randomized clinical trial. Iran. J. Reprod. Med. 11 , 583–588 (2013).

Kashaninia, Z., Sajedi, F., Rahgozar, M. & Noghabi, F. A. The effect of kangaroo care on behavioral responses to pain of an intramuscular injection in neonates . J. Pediatr. Nurs. 3 , 275–280 (2008).

Kelling, C., Pitaro, D. & Rantala, J. Good vibes: The impact of haptic patterns on stress levels. In Proc. 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference 130–136 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016).

Khilnani, S., Field, T., Hernandez-Reif, M. & Schanberg, S. Massage therapy improves mood and behavior of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Adolescence 38 , 623–638 (2003).

Kianmehr, M. et al. The effect of massage on serum bilirubin levels in term neonates with hyperbilirubinemia undergoing phototherapy. Nautilus 128 , 36–41 (2014).

Kim, I.-H., Kim, T.-Y. & Ko, Y.-W. The effect of a scalp massage on stress hormone, blood pressure, and heart rate of healthy female. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 28 , 2703–2707 (2016).

Kim, M. A., Kim, S.-J. & Cho, H. Effects of tactile stimulation by fathers on physiological responses and paternal attachment in infants in the NICU: a pilot study. J. Child Health Care 21 , 36–45 (2017).

Kim, M. S., Sook Cho, K., Woo, H.-M. & Kim, J. H. Effects of hand massage on anxiety in cataract surgery using local anesthesia. J. Cataract Refr. Surg. 27 , 884–890 (2001).

Koole, S. L., Tjew A Sin, M. & Schneider, I. K. Embodied terror management: interpersonal touch alleviates existential concerns among individuals with low self-esteem. Psychol. Sci. 25 , 30–37 (2014).

Krohn, M. et al. Depression, mood, stress, and Th1/Th2 immune balance in primary breast cancer patients undergoing classical massage therapy. Support. Care Cancer 19 , 1303–1311 (2011).

Kuhn, C. et al. Tactile-kinesthetic stimulation effects sympathetic and adrenocortical function in preterm infants. J. Pediatr. 119 , 434–440 (1991).

Kumar, J. et al. Effect of oil massage on growth in preterm neonates less than 1800 g: a randomized control trial. Indian J. Pediatr. 80 , 465–469 (2013).

Lee, H.-K. The effects of infant massage on weight, height, and mother–infant interaction. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. 36 , 1331–1339 (2006).

Leivadi, S. et al. Massage therapy and relaxation effects on university dance students. J. Dance Med. Sci. 3 , 108–112 (1999).

Lindgren, L. et al. Touch massage: a pilot study of a complex intervention. Nurs. Crit. Care 18 , 269–277 (2013).

Lindgren, L. et al. Physiological responses to touch massage in healthy volunteers. Auton. Neurosci. Basic Clin. 158 , 105–110 (2010).

Listing, M. et al. Massage therapy reduces physical discomfort and improves mood disturbances in women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncol. 18 , 1290–1299 (2009).

Ludington-Hoe, S. M., Cranston Anderson, G., Swinth, J. Y., Thompson, C. & Hadeed, A. J. Randomized controlled trial of kangaroo care: cardiorespiratory and thermal effects on healthy preterm infants. Neonatal Netw. 23 , 39–48 (2004).

Lund, I. et al. Corticotropin releasing factor in urine—a possible biochemical marker of fibromyalgia. Neurosci. Lett. 403 , 166–171 (2006).

Ma, Y.-K. et al. Lack of social touch alters anxiety-like and social behaviors in male mice. Stress 25 , 134–144 (2022).

Massaro, A. N., Hammad, T. A., Jazzo, B. & Aly, H. Massage with kinesthetic stimulation improves weight gain in preterm infants. J. Perinatol. 29 , 352–357 (2009).

Mathai, S., Fernandez, A., Mondkar, J. & Kanbur, W. Effects of tactile-kinesthetic stimulation in preterms–a controlled trial. Indian Pediatr. 38 , 1091–1098 (2001).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Matsunaga, M. et al. Profiling of serum proteins influenced by warm partner contact in healthy couples. Neuroenocrinol. Lett. 30 , 227–236 (2009).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Mendes, E. W. & Procianoy, R. S. Massage therapy reduces hospital stay and occurrence of late-onset sepsis in very preterm neonates. J. Perinatol. 28 , 815–820 (2008).

Mirnia, K., Arshadi Bostanabad, M., Asadollahi, M. & Hamid Razzaghi, M. Paternal skin-to-skin care and its effect on cortisol levels of the infants. Iran. J. Pediatrics 27 , e8151 (2017).

Mitchell, A. J., Yates, C., Williams, K. & Hall, R. W. Effects of daily kangaroo care on cardiorespiratory parameters in preterm infants. J. Neonatal-Perinat. Med. 6 , 243–249 (2013).

Mitchinson, A. R. et al. Acute postoperative pain management using massage as an adjuvant therapy: a randomized trial. Arch. Surg. 142 , 1158–1167 (2007).

Modrcin-Talbott, M. A., Harrison, L. L., Groer, M. W. & Younger, M. S. The biobehavioral effects of gentle human touch on preterm infants. Nurs. Sci. Q. 16 , 60–67 (2003).

Mok, E. & Pang Woo, C. The effects of slow-stroke back massage on anxiety and shoulder pain in elderly stroke patients. Complement. Ther. Nurs. Midwifery 10 , 209–216 (2004).

Mokaberian, M., Noripour, S., Sheikh, M. & Mills, P. J. Examining the effectiveness of body massage on physical status of premature neonates and their mothers’ psychological status. Early Child Dev. Care 192 , 2311–2325 (2021).

Mori, H. et al. Effect of massage on blood flow and muscle fatigue following isometric lumbar exercise. Med. Sci. Monit. Int. Med. J. Exp. Clin. Res. 10 , CR173–CR178 (2004).

Moyer-Mileur, L. J., Haley, S., Slater, H., Beachy, J. & Smith, S. L. Massage improves growth quality by decreasing body fat deposition in male preterm infants. J. Pediatr. 162 , 490–495 (2013).

Moyle, W. et al. Foot massage and physiological stress in people with dementia: a randomized controlled trial. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 20 , 305–311 (2014).

Muntsant, A., Shrivastava, K., Recasens, M. & Giménez-Llort, L. Severe perinatal hypoxic-ischemic brain injury induces long-term sensorimotor deficits, anxiety-like behaviors and cognitive impairment in a sex-, age- and task-selective manner in C57BL/6 mice but can be modulated by neonatal handling. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 13 , 7 (2019).

Negahban, H., Rezaie, S. & Goharpey, S. Massage therapy and exercise therapy in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled pilot study. Clin. Rehabil. 27 , 1126–1136 (2013).

Nelson, D., Heitman, R. & Jennings, C. Effects of tactile stimulation on premature infant weight gain. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 15 , 262–267 (1986).

Griffin, J. W. Calculating statistical power for meta-analysis using metapower. Quant. Meth. Psychol . 17 , 24–39 (2021).

Nunes, G. S. et al. Massage therapy decreases pain and perceived fatigue after long-distance Ironman triathlon: a randomised trial. J. Physiother. 62 , 83–87 (2016).

Ohgi, S. et al. Comparison of kangaroo care and standard care: behavioral organization, development, and temperament in healthy, low-birth-weight infants through 1 year. J. Perinatol. 22 , 374–379 (2002).

O′Higgins, M., St. James Roberts, I. & Glover, V. Postnatal depression and mother and infant outcomes after infant massage. J. Affect. Disord. 109 , 189–192 (2008).

Okan, F., Ozdil, A., Bulbul, A., Yapici, Z. & Nuhoglu, A. Analgesic effects of skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding in procedural pain in healthy term neonates. Ann. Trop. Paediatr. 30 , 119–128 (2010).

Oliveira, D. S., Hachul, H., Goto, V., Tufik, S. & Bittencourt, L. R. A. Effect of therapeutic massage on insomnia and climacteric symptoms in postmenopausal women. Climacteric 15 , 21–29 (2012).

Olsson, E., Ahlsén, G. & Eriksson, M. Skin-to-skin contact reduces near-infrared spectroscopy pain responses in premature infants during blood sampling. Acta Paediatr. 105 , 376–380 (2016).

Pauk, J., Kuhn, C. M., Field, T. M. & Schanberg, S. M. Positive effects of tactile versus kinesthetic or vestibular stimulation on neuroendocrine and ODC activity in maternally-deprived rat pups. Life Sci. 39 , 2081–2087 (1986).

Pinazo, D., Arahuete, L. & Correas, N. Hugging as a buffer against distal fear of death. Calid. Vida Salud 13 , 11–20 (2020).

Pope, M. H. et al. A prospective randomized three-week trial of spinal manipulation, transcutaneous muscle stimulation, massage and corset in the treatment of subacute low back pain. Spine 19 , 2571–2577 (1994).

Preyde, M. Effectiveness of massage therapy for subacute low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 162 , 1815–1820 (2000).

Ramanathan, K., Paul, V. K., Deorari, A. K., Taneja, U. & George, G. Kangaroo mother care in very low birth weight infants. Indian J. Pediatr. 68 , 1019–1023 (2001).

Reddan, M. C., Young, H., Falkner, J., López-Solà, M. & Wager, T. D. Touch and social support influence interpersonal synchrony and pain. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 15 , 1064–1075 (2020).

Rodríguez-Mansilla, J. et al. The effects of ear acupressure, massage therapy and no therapy on symptoms of dementia: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 29 , 683–693 (2015).

Rose, S. A., Schmidt, K., Riese, M. L. & Bridger, W. H. Effects of prematurity and early intervention on responsivity to tactual stimuli: a comparison of preterm and full-term infants. Child Dev. 51 , 416–425 (1980).

Scafidi, F. A. et al. Massage stimulates growth in preterm infants: a replication. Infant Behav. Dev. 13 , 167–188 (1990).

Scafidi, F. A. et al. Effects of tactile/kinesthetic stimulation on the clinical course and sleep/wake behavior of preterm neonates. Infant Behav. Dev. 9 , 91–105 (1986).

Scafidi, F. & Field, T. Massage therapy improves behavior in neonates born to HIV-positive mothers. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 21 , 889–897 (1996).

Scarr-Salapatek, S. & Williams, M. L. A stimulation program for low birth weight infants. Am. J. Public Health 62 , 662–667 (1972).

Serrano, B., Baños, R. M. & Botella, C. Virtual reality and stimulation of touch and smell for inducing relaxation: a randomized controlled trial. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55 , 1–8 (2016).

Seyyedrasooli, A., Valizadeh, L., Hosseini, M. B., Asgari Jafarabadi, M. & Mohammadzad, M. Effect of vimala massage on physiological jaundice in infants: a randomized controlled trial. J. Caring Sci. 3 , 165–173 (2014).

Sharpe, P. A., Williams, H. G., Granner, M. L. & Hussey, J. R. A randomised study of the effects of massage therapy compared to guided relaxation on well-being and stress perception among older adults. Complement. Therap. Med. 15 , 157–163 (2007).

Sherman, K. J., Cherkin, D. C., Hawkes, R. J., Miglioretti, D. L. & Deyo, R. A. Randomized trial of therapeutic massage for chronic neck pain. Clin. J. Pain. 25 , 233–238 (2009).

Shiloh, S., Sorek, G. & Terkel, J. Reduction of state-anxiety by petting animals in a controlled laboratory experiment. Anxiety, Stress Coping 16 , 387–395 (2003).

Shor-Posner, G. et al. Impact of a massage therapy clinical trial on immune status in young Dominican children infected with HIV-1. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 12 , 511–516 (2006).

Simpson, E. A. et al. Social touch alters newborn monkey behavior. Infant Behav. Dev. 57 , 101368 (2019).

Smith, S. L., Haley, S., Slater, H. & Moyer-Mileur, L. J. Heart rate variability during caregiving and sleep after massage therapy in preterm infants. Early Hum. Dev. 89 , 525–529 (2013).

Smith, S. L. et al. The effect of massage on heart rate variability in preterm infants. J. Perinatol. 33 , 59–64 (2013).

Solkoff, N. & Matuszak, D. Tactile stimulation and behavioral development among low-birthweight infants. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 6 , 3337 (1975).

Srivastava, S., Gupta, A., Bhatnagar, A. & Dutta, S. Effect of very early skin to skin contact on success at breastfeeding and preventing early hypothermia in neonates. Indian J. Public Health 58 , 22–26 (2014).

Stringer, J., Swindell, R. & Dennis, M. Massage in patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy reduces serum cortisol and prolactin: massage in oncology patients reduces serum cortisol. Psycho-Oncol. 17 , 1024–1031 (2008).

Suman Rao, P. N., Udani, R. & Nanavati, R. Kangaroo mother care for low birth weight infants: a randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatr. 45 , 17–23 (2008).

Sumioka, H. et al. A huggable device can reduce the stress of calling an unfamiliar person on the phone for individuals with ASD. PLoS ONE 16 , e0254675 (2021).

Sumioka, H., Nakae, A., Kanai, R. & Ishiguro, H. Huggable communication medium decreases cortisol levels. Sci. Rep. 3 , 3034 (2013).

Suzuki, M. et al. Physical and psychological effects of 6-week tactile massage on elderly patients with severe dementia. Am. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. Other Dement. 25 , 680–686 (2010).

Thomson, L. J. M., Ander, E. E., Menon, U., Lanceley, A. & Chatterjee, H. J. Quantitative evidence for wellbeing benefits from a heritage-in-health intervention with hospital patients. Int. J. Art. Ther. 17 , 63–79 (2012).

Triplett, J. L. & Arneson, S. W. The use of verbal and tactile comfort to alleviate distress in young hospitalized children. Res. Nurs. Health 2 , 17–23 (1979).

Walach, H., Güthlin, C. & König, M. Efficacy of massage therapy in chronic pain: a pragmatic randomized trial. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 9 , 837–846 (2003).

Walker, S. C. et al. C‐low threshold mechanoafferent targeted dynamic touch modulates stress resilience in rats exposed to chronic mild stress. Eur. J. Neurosci. 55 , 2925–2938 (2022).

Weinrich, S. P. & Weinrich, M. C. The effect of massage on pain in cancer patients. Appl. Nurs. Res. 3 , 140–145 (1990).

Wheeden, A. et al. Massage effects on cocaine-exposed preterm neonates. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 14 , 318–322 (1993).

White, J. L. & Labarba, R. C. The effects of tactile and kinesthetic stimulation on neonatal development in the premature infant. Dev. Psychobiol. 9 , 569–577 (1976).

Wilkie, D. J. et al. Effects of massage on pain intensity, analgesics and quality of life in patients with cancer pain: a pilot study of a randomized clinical trial conducted within hospice care delivery. Hosp. J. 15 , 31–53 (2000).

Willemse, C. J. A. M., Toet, A. & van Erp, J. B. F. Affective and behavioral responses to robot-initiated social touch: toward understanding the opportunities and limitations of physical contact in human–robot interaction. Front. ICT 4 , 12 (2017).

Willemse, C. J. A. M. & van Erp, J. B. F. Social touch in human–robot interaction: robot-initiated touches can induce positive responses without extensive prior bonding. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 11 , 285–304 (2019).

Woods, D. L., Beck, C. & Sinha, K. The effect of therapeutic touch on behavioral symptoms and cortisol in persons with dementia. Res. Complement. Med. 16 , 181–189 (2009).

Yamaguchi, M., Sekine, T. & Shetty, V. A salivary cytokine panel discriminates moods states following a touch massage intervention. Int. J. Affect. Eng. 19 , 189–198 (2020).

Yamazaki, R. et al. Intimacy in phone conversations: anxiety reduction for Danish seniors with hugvie. Front. Psychol. 7 , 537 (2016).

Yang, M.-H. et al. Comparison of the efficacy of aroma-acupressure and aromatherapy for the treatment of dementia-associated agitation. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 15 , 93 (2015).

Yates, C. C. et al. The effects of massage therapy to induce sleep in infants born preterm. Pediatr. Phys. Ther. 26 , 405–410 (2014).

Yu, H. et al. Social touch-like tactile stimulation activates a tachykinin 1-oxytocin pathway to promote social interactions. Neuron 110 , 1051–1067 (2022).

Lakens, D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t -tests and ANOVAs. Front. Psychol. 4 , 863 (2013).

Page, M. J., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 (2021).

Wilson, D. B. Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator (Version 2023.11.27). https://campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/effect-size-calculator.html (2023).

Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 (2010).

Scammacca, N., Roberts, G. & Stuebing, K. K. Meta-analysis with complex research designs: dealing with dependence from multiple measures and multiple group comparisons. Rev. Educ. Res. 84 , 328–364 (2014).

Pustejovsky, J. E. & Tipton, E. Meta-analysis with robust variance estimation: expanding the range of working models. Prev. Sci. Off. J. Soc. Prev. Res. 23 , 425–438 (2022).

Cook, R. D. in International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (ed. M. Lovric) S. 301–302 (Springer, 2011).

Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. & Deeks, J. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 (2003).

Oberauer, K. The importance of random slopes in mixed models for Bayesian hypothesis testing. Psychol. Sci. 33 , 648–665 (2022).

Nakagawa, S. et al. The orchard plot: cultivating a forest plot for use in ecology, evolution, and beyond. Res. Synth. Methods 12 , 4–12 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Frick and E. Chris for supporting the initial literature search and coding. We also thank A. Dreisoerner, T. Field, S. Koole, C. Kuhn, M. Henricson, L. Frey Law, J. Fraser, M. Cumella Reddan, and J. Stringer, who kindly responded to our data requests and provided additional information or data with respect to single studies. J.P. was supported by the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (LPDS 2021-05). H.H. was supported by the Marietta-Blau scholarship of the Austrian Agency for Education and Internationalisation (OeAD) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation, project ID 422744262 – TRR 289). C.K. received funding from OCENW.XL21.XL21.069 and V.G. from the European Research Council (ERC) under European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant ‘HelpUS’ (758703) and from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) grant OCENW.XL21.XL21.069. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Open access funding provided by Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

Author information

Julian Packheiser

Present address: Social Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

These authors contributed equally: Julian Packheiser, Helena Hartmann.

Authors and Affiliations

Social Brain Lab, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Julian Packheiser, Helena Hartmann, Kelly Fredriksen, Valeria Gazzola, Christian Keysers & Frédéric Michon

Center for Translational and Behavioral Neuroscience, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

Helena Hartmann

Clinical Neurosciences, Department for Neurology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.P. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing the original draft, review and editing, visualization, supervision and project administration. HH contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing the original draft, review and editing, visualization, supervision and project administration. K.F. contributed to investigation, data curation, and review and editing. C.K. and V.G. contributed to conceptualization, and review and editing. F.M. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing the original draft, and review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Packheiser .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Ville Harjunen, Rebecca Boehme and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Figs. 1–21 and Tables 1–4.

Reporting Summary

Peer review file, supplementary table 1.

List of studies included in and excluded from the meta-analyses/review.

Supplementary Table 2

PRISMA checklist, manuscript.

Supplementary Table 3

PRISMA checklist, abstract.

Source Data Fig. 2

Effect size/error (columns ‘Hedges_g’ and ‘variance’) information for each study/cohort/effect included in the analysis. Source Data Fig. 3 Effect size/error (columns ‘Hedges_g’ and ‘variance’) together with moderator data (column ‘Outcome’) for each study/cohort/effect included in the analysis. Source Data Fig. 4 Effect size/error (columns ‘Hedges_g’ and ‘variance’) together with moderator data (columns ‘dyad_type’ and ‘skin_to_skin’) for each study/cohort/effect included in the analysis. Source Data Fig. 5 Effect size/error (columns ‘Hedges_g’ and ‘variance’) together with moderator data (column ‘touch_type’) for each study/cohort/effect included in the analysis. Source Data Fig. 6 Effect size/error (columns ‘Hedges_g’ and ‘variance’) together with moderator data (column ‘clin_sample’) for each study/cohort/effect included in the analysis. Source Data Fig. 7 Effect size/error (columns ‘Hedges_g’ and ‘variance’) together with moderator data (column ‘familiarity’) for each study/cohort/effect included in the analysis. Source Data Fig. 7 Effect size/error (columns ‘Hedges_g’ and ‘variance’) together with moderator data (columns ‘touch_duration’ and ‘sessions’) for each study/cohort/effect included in the analysis.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Packheiser, J., Hartmann, H., Fredriksen, K. et al. A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions. Nat Hum Behav (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01841-8

Download citation

Received : 16 August 2023

Accepted : 29 January 2024

Published : 08 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01841-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, technology acceptance model in halal industries: a systematic literature review and research agenda.

Journal of Islamic Marketing

ISSN : 1759-0833

Article publication date: 16 April 2024

The continued relevance of technologies in halal industries requires managers to understand the factors contributing to such technologies’ acceptance. The technology acceptance model (TAM) is dominant in the literature that predicts user acceptance and behaviour towards technology. Despite the model’s significance, there has yet to be a systematic review of studies featuring halal sectors that use TAM. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the existing literature on TAM in halal industries to understand the research trends as well as TAM modifications and research opportunities in halal industries.

Design/methodology/approach

Guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocol, a framework-based review using the theories, contexts, characteristics and methods (TCCM) framework was conducted. The Scopus and Web of Science databases were used to retrieve English journal articles that investigated TAM in the context of halal markets. In total, 44 eligible articles were reviewed in terms of the developments and extensions of TAM in their studies across the halal industries.

The first study related to the use of TAM in the context of halal industries was published in 2014. The most prominent halal industry in the review, which used TAM, was Islamic finance. Indonesia was the leading economy in halal studies using TAM. Perceived usefulness was found to be a more significant factor than perceived ease of use for technology acceptance in TAM studies on halal industries. The significance of religiosity on TAM was inconsistent. Most research was done using quantitative surveys with consumers as the target sample.

Research limitations/implications

The studies in this review are based on the Scopus and Web of Science databases, which may be perceived as a study limitation. This study also only considered English journal articles and research in which the focus was on the use of TAM in halal industries rather than general industries with Muslim consumers.

Practical implications

Halal industries will continue to rely on technology for the provision of goods and services. With the rise of emerging technological innovations, this review will provide managers with an appreciation of technology acceptance across different contexts. Researchers can use the results of this review to guide future studies and contribute toward the development of this research area.

Originality/value

This review contributes to the Islamic marketing literature by being the first to comprehensively review the TAM model in the context of halal industries using the TCCM framework-based review approach. A research agenda is proposed to advance research on technology acceptance and TAM in halal industries.

• Technology acceptance model
• Technology adoption
• Systematic literature review

Noor, N. (2024), "Technology acceptance model in halal industries: a systematic literature review and research agenda", Journal of Islamic Marketing , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-02-2024-0077

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here