“…Finally, given the scale of this review as it required screening 1156 manuscripts and the extensive reading and coding of 162 manuscripts across 25 variables and themes of interest, forward and backward references of the identified manuscripts were not examined to keep the scale of the documents reviewed manageable. Nonetheless, in an effort to contextualize the findings of this review within the larger traditions of game accessibility research, this study included not only empirical works, but additionally 19 previous literature reviews that have examined the general accessibility of digital games accessibility at large (Aguado-Delgado et al, 2020; Cairns et al, 2019a; Fortes et al, 2017) and in specific to people with cognitive (Cinquin et al, 2019), intellectual (Sousa, 2020), motor (Santos Nunes et al, 2018) and visual (Garcez et al, 2020; Nesteriuk, 2018; Teixeira Borges and de Borba Campos, 2017) disabilities as well as ASD (Spiel et al, 2019; Spiel and Gerling, 2021; Tharian et al, 2019; Valencia et al, 2019); the accessibility of serious games at large (Salvador-Ullauri et al, 2020b) and in specific to people with cognitive (Cinquin et al, 2019; Jaramillo-Alcázar et al, 2017a) and mental (Francillette et al, 2021) disabilities, and the accessibility of educational gamification at large (Coelho et al, 2020), in specific to people with ASD (Camargo et al, 2019) and cognitive disabilities (Cinquin et al, 2019; de Franca et al, 2019) and in implementing accessibility (Marques and Graeml, 2017). Including these 19 reviews was to ensure a level of reflection on research conducted before the 5-year timeframe of this current literature study.…”