Systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis projects
Types of reviews
Although systematic reviews are one of the most well-known review types, there are a variety of different types of reviews that vary in terms of scope, comprehensiveness, time constraints, and types of studies included.
The best review for your project depends on the intersection of:
- your research goals
- your research question
- your time frame
- your research team
Several tools are provided below to help you identify which type of review is best suited for your research.
Identifying the right review type for your project - start here!
- Review Methodology Decision Tree from Cornell University Library
- Flow chart for selecting review type from Yale's Cushing/Whitney Medical Library
- What review is right for you? is a tool to help guide your choice of an appropriate review type
A summary of review types
Type of Review | Description | Time to Complete | Search Strategy | Other Information |
---|---|---|---|---|
Narrative/"Literature" Review (standalone lit review articles, not lit review sections of a larger research article) |
Collates relevant studies and draws conclusions from them. No formal methodology. No protocol required. Can be solo or team project. |
3+ months |
Search strategy not typically reported. Not comprehensive, which could introduce bias. |
Collins JA, Fauser BC. Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(2):103-104. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmh058 |
Systematized Review |
Narrative review that uses some techniques from systematic and scoping reviews. May be done for dissertations or summer project. No formal methodology. No registered protocol required. Can be solo or team project.
|
3+ months |
Search strategy often reported. Not comprehensive, which could introduce bias. |
For dissertations and assigned projects, check the rubric as to what systematic elements are expected. |
Version of systematic or scoping review that streamlines the process according to established guidelines at the risk of introducing bias. Frequently for policy-related or emergency situations. Requires a protocol and team. |
3-6+ months |
Completeness of searching determined by time constraints. Librarian collaboration recommended. |
Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10. Published 2012 Feb 10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2017. Rapid reviews from the ground up video series from Cochrane Training, 2017 |
|
Integrative Review |
Reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. Can combine empirical and theoretical literature, which requires specific methods of data analysis. |
3+ months |
Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive search. Librarian collaboration recommended. |
Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546-553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x |
Umbrella Review |
Reviews other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a topic. Requires a protocol and team. |
6-12+ months |
Identification of component reviews but no search for primary studies. Librarian collaboration recommended. |
Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Umbrella Reviews (2020). In: Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01 Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):15. Published 2011 Feb 3. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-15 |
Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research). May be done as a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. Requires a protocol and team. |
10-12+ months |
Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. Librarian collaboration recommended. |
Arskey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J of Soc Research Meth: Theory and Prac. 2005; 8:1. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Scoping Reviews (2020). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI, 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. doi:10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 Daudt HM, van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:48. Published 2013 Mar 23. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-48 |
|
Systematic Review |
Attempts to identify, appraise, and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Requires a protocol and team. |
10-12+ months |
Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive search. Librarian collaboration recommended. |
Lodge M. Conducting a systematic review: finding the evidence. J Evid Based Med. 2011;4(2):135-139. doi:10.1111/j.1756-5391.2011.01130.x
Munn Z, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.
|
Meta-Analysis |
A statistical test that combines the results from multiple studies to answer one or more research questions. Requires a protocol and team. |
10-12+ months |
Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive search. Statistician collaboration recommended. Librarian collaboration recommended. |
Møller AM, Myles PS. What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis?. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117(4):428-430. doi:10.1093/bja/aew264 |
Based on University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Health Sciences Library. Types of Reviews. Systematic Reviews website. Updated January 29, 2021. Accessed September 21, 2021. https://guides.lib.unc.edu/systematic-reviews
Further reading on review types
- Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements; by Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202-222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276
- A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies; by Grant MJ, Booth A. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
- Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach; by Zachary Munn, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur & Edoardo Aromataris. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x