You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Software Testing Process Models Benefits&Drawbacks: a Systematic Literature Review 
Chapter Title:  Results from other reviews 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Software products quality is strongly influenced by the quality of the process that generated them; particularly, the testing process contributes to product quality and represents a significant effort in software development projects. In this context, this study aim to find which test process models has been defined, adapted or extended in software industry from 1990 to the current date. For this purpose, a systematic literature review has been performed according to relevant guidelines. This study has identified 23 test process models, many of them adapted or extended from TMMi and TPI, which have different architectures and the new ISO/IEC 29119 with an architectural approach aligned to other ISO/IEC software process models.

Literature Review:
Several secondary studies of testing process models were performed with the aim to compare existing models  . We compare results and used methods of three literature reviews about testing models conducted in recent years to analyze existing approaches, namely by Garcia et al. BIB002 ; Afzal et al.  ; Garousi et al.  ( Table 1 ). The current review complements existing reviews by focusing explicitly on empirical studies, extracting the list of applied models and their domains, aspects, strengths and weaknesses as derived from empirical studies. Provision of this knowledge can help organizations to analyze and decide which testing models can be more appropriate for specific contexts. The review of Garcia et al. BIB002 presents 23 testing models and information about them such as domain, source model and year of publication. It includes models such as the Maturity Model for Automated Software Testing (MMAST), Testing Assessment Programme (TAP) and Test Organization Model (TOM), which are assessed rarely in empirical studies. These models are collected from the report of Swinkels  , which compares the models against TMM. Differences with the current review. The main difference between the survey of Garcia et al. BIB002 and our review is about the focus of the review. Garcia et al. BIB002 aim at getting a complete list of models created over time, while we concentrate on experiences derived from the application of the models to real organizational context. As such, in our review, advantages, drawbacks and practices reported for the models play a major role. Our review is also more extensive in terms of provided details about testing models than the one of Garcia et al. BIB002 . The second review by Afzal et al.  provides both an SLR and a case study by mapping TPI NEXT and TMMi to a concrete case. The specific focus is on usability of the models in industry. Overall the study provides a list of 18 testing models. There are less approaches than in the previous survey by Garcia et al. BIB002 , because testing models from secondary studies were omitted, e.g. Swinkels  . On the other hand, the review by Afzal et al.  is more extended in models description and details such as the status of development, and improvement suggestions. Differences with the current review. The differences between the review of Afzal et al.  and our survey are mainly in the approach. Afzal et al.  look into the applicability of the testing models to industry, by reviewing list of models in an SLR. However, their focus is not on the identification of reported benefits and drawbacks, rather on the identification of models applicable to industry. Such models are then used in a case study to assist organizations in the selections of best testing models. In our case, we look at reported experiences directly from the articles included in the review. The most recent survey is a Multivocal Literature Review (MLR) by Garousi et al.  , which focuses on scientific literature and also on gray literature. As a result, the authors identified 58 testing models. They collected the drivers, benefits and challenges of improvement activities. The survey deals with base maturity models which are used for developing new models. Differences with the current review. Besides the used methods, the review of Garousi et al.  differs from our survey in the focus of the study. Garousi et al.  place more relevance to challenges and benefits of conducting testing process improvement activities inside organizations, as such the review of Garousi et al.  is more detailed than the current one. While the authors discuss drivers and challenges for all models in general, we emphasize more the empirical experiences gathered from the application of each single testing model, associating reported benefits, drawbacks and practices to drive adoption decisions about each testing model. There are other secondary studies that focus on selected groups of testing models, although such studies are not run in the form of an SLR ( Table 2) . The technical report of Swinkels  gathers existing TPI models up to year 2000. The result is eight testing models (TMM, MMAST, TAP, TCMM, TIM, TOM, TPI and  TSM) . Subsequently, the author defines criteria for models selection and compares the TMM model only with those which fulfill the criteria (TIM and TPI). As a conclusion from the comparison, authors consider TMM and TPI as the most comprehensive models and propose TMM as a base for MB-TMM, with several key areas handled by TPI. The report by Farooq and Dunke  includes a part of comparison of several testing models. The authors present six testing models (TMM, TPI, TIM, MB-VV-MM, TPAM and TMMi) and select three of them, which are discussed in more extended way (TMM, TPI and TMMi). Farooq  evaluates eight testing models in his dissertation (TMM, TPI, TIM, TMap, MB-VV-MM, TPAM,  ICMM and TMMi) . Because of the insignificance or incompleteness of some models, the author selects four models (TMM, TPI, ICMM and TMMi) and provides their overview. The paper by Abdou et al. BIB001 focuses on four testing ma-