Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 9 – uploaded by Siyabonga G I F T Skosana

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
2.9.4. Methods for Synthesizing Results

Table 9 2.9.4. Methods for Synthesizing Results

Related Figures (57)

Figure 1. The Evolution and differences between 3G, 4G, and 5G infrastructure Requirements [64].
Figure 1. The Evolution and differences between 3G, 4G, and 5G infrastructure Requirements [64].
Table 2. Proposed Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. 2.2. Information Source
Table 2. Proposed Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. 2.2. Information Source
Figure 2. Proposed PRISMA Flowchart. 2.3. Search Strategy
Figure 2. Proposed PRISMA Flowchart. 2.3. Search Strategy
Table 3. Keyword Search. The above key words assist in finding literature, which is relating to the SLR research topic, with that the process of obtaining the appropriate key word search is very important as it helps in obtaining literatures appropriate to the SLR research topic. To be more relatable, literature has a specified domain between 2014 to 2024 which covers literatures which have been published recently, covering new and relatable research. A total of 1892 literatures was obtained except only a few numbers of literatures are applicable to the SLR research topic. Table 4 gives a detailed overview of the number of literatures obtained versus the number relating to the SLR research topic. The conducted literature review houses research from multiple sources, Google scholar, Web Science and Scoopers respectively which contributed with work published by great minds relating to the SLR research topic. The following set of key words was utilized to increase efficiency when searching for literature related to the literature topic. Table 3 shows the list of key words which were utilized to increase efficiency [133] — [140].
Table 3. Keyword Search. The above key words assist in finding literature, which is relating to the SLR research topic, with that the process of obtaining the appropriate key word search is very important as it helps in obtaining literatures appropriate to the SLR research topic. To be more relatable, literature has a specified domain between 2014 to 2024 which covers literatures which have been published recently, covering new and relatable research. A total of 1892 literatures was obtained except only a few numbers of literatures are applicable to the SLR research topic. Table 4 gives a detailed overview of the number of literatures obtained versus the number relating to the SLR research topic. The conducted literature review houses research from multiple sources, Google scholar, Web Science and Scoopers respectively which contributed with work published by great minds relating to the SLR research topic. The following set of key words was utilized to increase efficiency when searching for literature related to the literature topic. Table 3 shows the list of key words which were utilized to increase efficiency [133] — [140].
2.4. Selection Process
2.4. Selection Process
2.6.1. Data Items Collection Method This section of the systematic review is an overview of data items that were selected, primarily focusing on the main outcomes as well as other variables used to help organize and summarize the literature. The primary outcomes for collecting data include different generations of wireless network technologies, network performance, business performance, as well as the long-term impacts [133] — [140]. The other variables include the economic context, technology providers, technology implementation, and sample characteristics. This allows for a including the most relevant data to give a well-structured analysis of the evolution and difference between generations of wireless network technologies. Figure 4 illustrates the data items process. This section is for listing and defining outcomes which data is searched that includes the strategic, operational, and financial factors of wireless networks and their infrastructure. For each outcome domain, all outcomes that are relevant with the measures were sought by covering different points, methods, analyses. Measures also ensure that a proper comparison is made between the wireless networks based on their business and network performance metrics. With a large number of results, a systematic review is used to emphasize reliable and necessary data based on a criterion [133] - [140]. points, methods, analyses. Measures also ensure that a proper comparison is made between the The network performance of technologies is an important outcome, which is measured by latency, bandwidth and coverage. Assessing those measurements helps with determining the
2.6.1. Data Items Collection Method This section of the systematic review is an overview of data items that were selected, primarily focusing on the main outcomes as well as other variables used to help organize and summarize the literature. The primary outcomes for collecting data include different generations of wireless network technologies, network performance, business performance, as well as the long-term impacts [133] — [140]. The other variables include the economic context, technology providers, technology implementation, and sample characteristics. This allows for a including the most relevant data to give a well-structured analysis of the evolution and difference between generations of wireless network technologies. Figure 4 illustrates the data items process. This section is for listing and defining outcomes which data is searched that includes the strategic, operational, and financial factors of wireless networks and their infrastructure. For each outcome domain, all outcomes that are relevant with the measures were sought by covering different points, methods, analyses. Measures also ensure that a proper comparison is made between the wireless networks based on their business and network performance metrics. With a large number of results, a systematic review is used to emphasize reliable and necessary data based on a criterion [133] - [140]. points, methods, analyses. Measures also ensure that a proper comparison is made between the The network performance of technologies is an important outcome, which is measured by latency, bandwidth and coverage. Assessing those measurements helps with determining the
Table 5. Data Items. All these data items were necessary for the formulation of the systematic review. Studies neede to have the at least more than 5 of these items to qualify in the inclusion criteria. The collective result can be used to come up with other means of forming data, especially in the form of graphs.
Table 5. Data Items. All these data items were necessary for the formulation of the systematic review. Studies neede to have the at least more than 5 of these items to qualify in the inclusion criteria. The collective result can be used to come up with other means of forming data, especially in the form of graphs.
Table 6. Network generation and speed. Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)
Table 6. Network generation and speed. Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)
Table 7. Network latency.
Table 7. Network latency.
Every study was thoroughly assessed for its relevance and congruence with the review's goals to establish its eligibility for inclusion in our systematic review on evaluating wireless network technologies (3G, 4G, and 5G) and their infrastructure. All study attributes, including intervention kinds and results, were carefully evaluated and contrasted with our pre-established synthesis groups. To guarantee a thorough and impartial assessment, a pattern was developed to visually com-pare the research’ methods and scope with our inclusion requirements. Through this method, the review's overall consistency and dependability were improved because only papers that were directly relevant to the review issue were included [133] — [140]. 2.9.2. Data Preparation Methods for Presentation and Synthesis There are various important techniques involved in preparing data for presentation and synthesis while analysing wireless network technologies (3G, 4G, and 5G) and their infrastructure. It is imperative to handle missing data, which is typically accomplished by imputation, sensitivity analysis, or the elimination of incomplete datasets. Consistency is ensured through data conversion; for example, scales and unit standards are adjusted. Accuracy is ensured by addressing mistakes and outliers through data cleaning. By using statistical metrics and tabulation, aggregation and summarization offer a concise summary. Like z-scores or standardization, normalization guarantees study comparability. Data trans-formation which includes logarithmic modifications assists in highlighting trends and controlling skewness. Together, these techniques guarantee a solid and insightful synthesis of the data [133] — [140].
Every study was thoroughly assessed for its relevance and congruence with the review's goals to establish its eligibility for inclusion in our systematic review on evaluating wireless network technologies (3G, 4G, and 5G) and their infrastructure. All study attributes, including intervention kinds and results, were carefully evaluated and contrasted with our pre-established synthesis groups. To guarantee a thorough and impartial assessment, a pattern was developed to visually com-pare the research’ methods and scope with our inclusion requirements. Through this method, the review's overall consistency and dependability were improved because only papers that were directly relevant to the review issue were included [133] — [140]. 2.9.2. Data Preparation Methods for Presentation and Synthesis There are various important techniques involved in preparing data for presentation and synthesis while analysing wireless network technologies (3G, 4G, and 5G) and their infrastructure. It is imperative to handle missing data, which is typically accomplished by imputation, sensitivity analysis, or the elimination of incomplete datasets. Consistency is ensured through data conversion; for example, scales and unit standards are adjusted. Accuracy is ensured by addressing mistakes and outliers through data cleaning. By using statistical metrics and tabulation, aggregation and summarization offer a concise summary. Like z-scores or standardization, normalization guarantees study comparability. Data trans-formation which includes logarithmic modifications assists in highlighting trends and controlling skewness. Together, these techniques guarantee a solid and insightful synthesis of the data [133] — [140].
Figure 7. Methods for Synthesizing Results and Their Rationale Cycle.
Figure 7. Methods for Synthesizing Results and Their Rationale Cycle.
Figure 8. Types of Reporting Bias. Reporting biases can have a substantial impact on the evaluation of wireless network technologies such as 3G, 4G, and 5G. These biases arise when certain outcomes are more likely to be published or reported than others, thus distorting the overall findings, hence, to thoroughly assess the reporting bias we will look at its components below, which includes the following biases, availability bias, language bias, publication bias, citation bias, duplication bias and selective reporting all contributing to the reporting bias as shown in Figure 4 [133] — [140].
Figure 8. Types of Reporting Bias. Reporting biases can have a substantial impact on the evaluation of wireless network technologies such as 3G, 4G, and 5G. These biases arise when certain outcomes are more likely to be published or reported than others, thus distorting the overall findings, hence, to thoroughly assess the reporting bias we will look at its components below, which includes the following biases, availability bias, language bias, publication bias, citation bias, duplication bias and selective reporting all contributing to the reporting bias as shown in Figure 4 [133] — [140].
Table 10. Certainty assessment table.
Table 10. Certainty assessment table.
Figure 9 illustrates a PRISMA flow diagram that shows the study selection process for this systematic review. Research papers were collected from online databases using keywords to search for relevant papers. The s inclusion and exclusion cri election of these research papers was carried out after following the terion as gave in the previous section. All relevant research papers from records were identified using a search term and various combinations of keywords to systematically investigate, which returned around 1892 publications across searched datasets of research. According to Figure 9 the accumulated research papers contained 121 research papers in total: Research papers of apparent duplicate research studies were excluded. Thus finally 121 were included in the entire systematic review process be full text assessed and loaded. Figure 9. Proposed PRISMA checklist.
Figure 9 illustrates a PRISMA flow diagram that shows the study selection process for this systematic review. Research papers were collected from online databases using keywords to search for relevant papers. The s inclusion and exclusion cri election of these research papers was carried out after following the terion as gave in the previous section. All relevant research papers from records were identified using a search term and various combinations of keywords to systematically investigate, which returned around 1892 publications across searched datasets of research. According to Figure 9 the accumulated research papers contained 121 research papers in total: Research papers of apparent duplicate research studies were excluded. Thus finally 121 were included in the entire systematic review process be full text assessed and loaded. Figure 9. Proposed PRISMA checklist.
Table 11. Comprehensive Overview of Wireless network technologies (83G,4G,5G) and _ their infrastructure.
Table 11. Comprehensive Overview of Wireless network technologies (83G,4G,5G) and _ their infrastructure.
3.3. Risk of bias in studies Table 12 displays the methodical assessment of bias risk for every included study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Based on the number of stars given in each of the three primary domains—Selection, Comparability, and Outcome/Exposure—the quality rating table groups research. Research with seven to nine stars were classified as high quality, whereas studies with four to six stars were classified as moderate quality. In our review, no study received a low-quality rating (0-3 stars). The comprehensive evaluation of every study is shown in Table 12, where the majority of the studies receive high-quality ratings. For example, Study 5 was rated as intermediate quality with 6 stars, whereas Study 1 obtained 8 stars, indicating a high degree of quality in all domains. The chart provides openness on potential biases by clearly outlining the domains where research was strong or poor. By ensuring that only papers with sound techniques were included in our evaluation, this risk of bias assessment increased confidence in the study's overall conclusions. Additional steps were taken to confirm the study's validity through external cross-referencing in cases where proprietary tools or insufficient data generated uncertainties, ensuring that our judgments remained impartial and correct.
3.3. Risk of bias in studies Table 12 displays the methodical assessment of bias risk for every included study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Based on the number of stars given in each of the three primary domains—Selection, Comparability, and Outcome/Exposure—the quality rating table groups research. Research with seven to nine stars were classified as high quality, whereas studies with four to six stars were classified as moderate quality. In our review, no study received a low-quality rating (0-3 stars). The comprehensive evaluation of every study is shown in Table 12, where the majority of the studies receive high-quality ratings. For example, Study 5 was rated as intermediate quality with 6 stars, whereas Study 1 obtained 8 stars, indicating a high degree of quality in all domains. The chart provides openness on potential biases by clearly outlining the domains where research was strong or poor. By ensuring that only papers with sound techniques were included in our evaluation, this risk of bias assessment increased confidence in the study's overall conclusions. Additional steps were taken to confirm the study's validity through external cross-referencing in cases where proprietary tools or insufficient data generated uncertainties, ensuring that our judgments remained impartial and correct.
Table 12. Risk of Bias assessment table.
Table 12. Risk of Bias assessment table.
Figure 10 shows the different types of wire ess network technologies across many research papers, showing various wireless networks that are studied and/or compared. The most prominent topic is wireless network with 42% is the 5G wireless network, followed by 3G, 4G, and 5G with 9%. LTE and 3G are mentioned and compared in 6% o f the research collected, as well as 6% that mainly discusses 3G as a wireless network. This highlights the variety of network technologies with 5G and 3G wireless network technologies as the most men tioned in research. In Figure 11 is a pie chart that illustrates the technology providers from each research study represented in percentages. Huawei, with 3%, is the leading technology provider according to the research papers. The second leading technology providers, with 2% of the pie chart is Ericsson, Ericsson and Siemens, and IBM, Intel, Huawei, ZTE, Ericsson, NEC, Alcatel, and Nokia. The chart shows the activeness of Huawei as providers and the significant lack of technology providers in a majority of studies leading by an 89%.
Figure 10 shows the different types of wire ess network technologies across many research papers, showing various wireless networks that are studied and/or compared. The most prominent topic is wireless network with 42% is the 5G wireless network, followed by 3G, 4G, and 5G with 9%. LTE and 3G are mentioned and compared in 6% o f the research collected, as well as 6% that mainly discusses 3G as a wireless network. This highlights the variety of network technologies with 5G and 3G wireless network technologies as the most men tioned in research. In Figure 11 is a pie chart that illustrates the technology providers from each research study represented in percentages. Huawei, with 3%, is the leading technology provider according to the research papers. The second leading technology providers, with 2% of the pie chart is Ericsson, Ericsson and Siemens, and IBM, Intel, Huawei, ZTE, Ericsson, NEC, Alcatel, and Nokia. The chart shows the activeness of Huawei as providers and the significant lack of technology providers in a majority of studies leading by an 89%.
3.5. Results of syntheses This section describes the approach of evaluating the characteristics and risk of bias among the research topics that were gathered. The results of the statistical syntheses which includes a summary estimate and its precision, and measures of statistical heterogeneity, highlighting the interest of wireless networks and their infrastructure. With regards to addressing the sensitivity analysis to highlight the common method of hybrid technology implantation model.
3.5. Results of syntheses This section describes the approach of evaluating the characteristics and risk of bias among the research topics that were gathered. The results of the statistical syntheses which includes a summary estimate and its precision, and measures of statistical heterogeneity, highlighting the interest of wireless networks and their infrastructure. With regards to addressing the sensitivity analysis to highlight the common method of hybrid technology implantation model.
Figure 12. Analysis Breakdown Method.
Figure 12. Analysis Breakdown Method.
Figure 13. Technology Implementation Model. Sensitivity analyses are used for the robustness and reliability of data-driven models in many fields. They determine the effect in the change of input variables and the outcomes of a model, to ensure that the insights derived are reliable and meaningful under different settings. The hybrid model is used in a large majority of the studies collected, holding a 60%. While the used model is on- premises. A hybrid model allows for flexibility and cost-effectiveness being compatible for requirements based on wireless networks. Hybrid not only provides real-time data access, but as well as direct, secure, and controlled access to locally stored data.
Figure 13. Technology Implementation Model. Sensitivity analyses are used for the robustness and reliability of data-driven models in many fields. They determine the effect in the change of input variables and the outcomes of a model, to ensure that the insights derived are reliable and meaningful under different settings. The hybrid model is used in a large majority of the studies collected, holding a 60%. While the used model is on- premises. A hybrid model allows for flexibility and cost-effectiveness being compatible for requirements based on wireless networks. Hybrid not only provides real-time data access, but as well as direct, secure, and controlled access to locally stored data.
Table 13. Reporting biasing.
Table 13. Reporting biasing.
Table 14. Certainty of evidence. 4. Key Findings and Strategic Implications for Business Leaders Table 15 provides a comprehensive breakdown of the key findings and strategic implications of G technology adoption, categorized by some of the world’s largest telecom companies. 1 ighlights the critical metrics, such as network coverage, data throughput, latency, energy e pectrum utilization, network densification, and security. It shows how these leading ompanies are addressing challenges related to infrastructure expansion, network stabi The table ficiency, telecom ity, and dvanced. technological applications. By categorizing findings in this manner, businesses and idustry leaders can better understand how these companies are optimizing 5G deploymen nique strategies they employ to leverage the technology's full potential. t and the
Table 14. Certainty of evidence. 4. Key Findings and Strategic Implications for Business Leaders Table 15 provides a comprehensive breakdown of the key findings and strategic implications of G technology adoption, categorized by some of the world’s largest telecom companies. 1 ighlights the critical metrics, such as network coverage, data throughput, latency, energy e pectrum utilization, network densification, and security. It shows how these leading ompanies are addressing challenges related to infrastructure expansion, network stabi The table ficiency, telecom ity, and dvanced. technological applications. By categorizing findings in this manner, businesses and idustry leaders can better understand how these companies are optimizing 5G deploymen nique strategies they employ to leverage the technology's full potential. t and the
Table 16. Proposed Decision-Making Framework for Implementing Wireless Technologies by Telecom Companies Across Continents, with Challenges and Opportunities.
Table 16. Proposed Decision-Making Framework for Implementing Wireless Technologies by Telecom Companies Across Continents, with Challenges and Opportunities.
Table 17. Proposed Best Practices for Successful Implementation of Wireless Technologies by Telecom Companies Across Continents, with Challenges and Opportunities.
Table 17. Proposed Best Practices for Successful Implementation of Wireless Technologies by Telecom Companies Across Continents, with Challenges and Opportunities.
Table 18. Proposed Metrics and KPIs for Measuring Wireless Network Performance by Telecom Companies Across Continents, with Challenges and Opportunities.
Table 18. Proposed Metrics and KPIs for Measuring Wireless Network Performance by Telecom Companies Across Continents, with Challenges and Opportunities.
Table 19. of Wireless Network Technologies by Industry, Tied to Challenges and Opportunities for SME Sectors Across Continents
Table 19. of Wireless Network Technologies by Industry, Tied to Challenges and Opportunities for SME Sectors Across Continents
Table 20. Industry-Specific Frameworks for Wireless Network Technologies, Tied to Challenges and Opportunities Across Regions.
Table 20. Industry-Specific Frameworks for Wireless Network Technologies, Tied to Challenges and Opportunities Across Regions.
Table 21. Summary of Case Studies Relevant to Evaluating Wireless Network Technologies (3G, 4G, 5G) and Their Infrastructure.
Table 21. Summary of Case Studies Relevant to Evaluating Wireless Network Technologies (3G, 4G, 5G) and Their Infrastructure.
Table 22. Proposed Roadmap for SME Wireless Network Adoption Across Continents, Addressing Key Challenges and Opportunities.
Table 22. Proposed Roadmap for SME Wireless Network Adoption Across Continents, Addressing Key Challenges and Opportunities.
Table 23. Addressed Research Questions and Relatively Important Elements.
Table 23. Addressed Research Questions and Relatively Important Elements.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved