define narrative literature review

Literature Review: Traditional or narrative literature reviews

Traditional or narrative literature reviews.

• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic literature reviews
• Annotated bibliography
• Keeping up to date with literature
• Finding a thesis
• Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature
• Managing and analysing your literature
• Further reading and resources

A narrative or traditional literature review is a comprehensive, critical and objective analysis of the current knowledge on a topic. They are an essential part of the research process and help to establish a theoretical framework and focus or context for your research. A literature review will help you to identify patterns and trends in the literature so that you can identify gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. This should lead you to a sufficiently focused research question that justifies your research.

Onwuegbuzie and Frels (pp 24-25, 2016) define four common types of narrative reviews:

• General literature review that provides a review of the most important and critical aspects of the current knowledge of the topic. This general literature review forms the introduction to a thesis or dissertation and must be defined by the research objective, underlying hypothesis or problem or the reviewer's argumentative thesis.
• Theoretical literature review which examines how theory shapes or frames research
• Methodological literature review where the research methods and design are described. These methodological reviews outline the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used and provide future direction
• Historical literature review which focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

References and additional resources

Baker, J. D. (2016) The purpose, process and methods of writing a literature review: Editorial . Association of Operating Room Nurses. AORN Journal, 103 (3), 265-269. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2016.01.016

• << Previous: Types of literature reviews
• Next: Scoping Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Oct 12, 2023 3:36 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

Ask a Librarian

How can I help you today?

A live human is ready to help.

Find & Cite | Research Help | Collections | Services | About

• Cook Library
• Research Guides

Planning For Your Expert Literature Review

Narrative literature reviews.

• Types of Expert Literature Reviews

Further Reading

• Standards and Guidelines
• The Systematic Review Process
• Review Tools and Platforms
• Rayyan Help
• Where to Publish
• Searching for Evidence in the Health Professions This link opens in a new window

Narrative or traditional literature reviews can take many shapes and forms. They do not need to follow any specific guideline or standard. A narrative literature view may be assigned as part of your coursework or capstone.

A narrative literature review can be a first step to building on other research in the field. After all, if it's a topic that you're interested in, you need to know what's already been done, right?

Your Narrative Literature Review Should Have...

• A clearly defined topic
• A search for relevant literature
• A logical organization structure
• An interpretation and discussion of the selected relevant literature

A common structure for narrative literature reviews is IMRaD, or:

• Introduction
• What is your topic?
• What are you interested in finding out?
• Why did you select this topic?
• How did you look for the literature?
• Where did you look?
• What search terms did you use?
• What kind of literature did you find?
• Did the literature you found change your opinion on the topic?
• Did you find out something new?
• What were the key concepts?
• and Discussion
• Evaluate and summarize the major concepts
• Connect the major concepts to future research potential

While the structure above may be sufficient for your topic, you may also consider using the similar but more robust structure IAMRDC, or:

• Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing, 24 (4), 230-235. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329
• Sollaci, L. B., & Pereira, M. G. (2004). The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association 92 (3), 364–367. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC442179/

• << Previous: Types of Expert Literature Reviews
• Next: Standards and Guidelines >>
• Last Updated: Nov 29, 2023 3:09 PM
• URL: https://towson.libguides.com/expert-reviews

How to Conduct a Literature Review: A Guide for Graduate Students

• Let's Get Started!

Traditional or Narrative Reviews

• Systematic Reviews
• Typology of Reviews
• Literature Review Resources
• Developing a Search Strategy
• What Literature to Search
• Where to Search: Indexes and Databases
• Finding articles: Libkey Nomad
• Finding Dissertations and Theses
• Extending Your Searching with Citation Chains
• Forward Citation Chains - Cited Reference Searching
• Keeping up with the Literature
• Managing Your References
• Need More Information?

A narrative or traditional literature review is a comprehensive, critical and objective analysis of the current knowledge on a topic. They are an essential part of the research process and help to establish a theoretical framework and focus or context for your research. A literature review will help you to identify patterns and trends in the literature so that you can identify gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. This should lead you to a sufficiently focused research question that justifies your research.

Onwuegbuzie and Frels (pp 24-25, 2016) define four common types of narrative reviews:

• General literature review that provides a review of the most important and critical aspects of the current knowledge of the topic. This general literature review forms the introduction to a thesis or dissertation and must be defined by the research objective, underlying hypothesis or problem or the reviewer's argumentative thesis.
• Historical literature review which focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.
• Methodological literature review where the research methods and design are described. These methodological reviews outline the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used and provide future direction
• Theoretical literature review which examines how theory shapes or frames research

References and additional resources

Machi, Lawrence A . & Brenda T. McEvoy (2016), The Literature Review: Six steps to success . 3rd edition. ; Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin . Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Frels, R. (2016) 7 steps to a comprehensive literature review: A multimodal & cultural approach . London: Sage Publications.

• << Previous: Types of Literature Reviews
• Next: Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Nov 27, 2023 2:48 PM
• URL: https://instr.iastate.libguides.com/gradlitrev

• A.T. Still University
• Prospective Students
• Current Students

• Literature Reviews
• Developing a Search Strategy
• Systematic Reviews This link opens in a new window
• Scoping Reviews This link opens in a new window
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Other Review Types
• Writing Hub This link opens in a new window
• Librarian Assistance

What is a Narrative Review?

A narrative literature review is an integrated analysis of the existing literature used to summarize a body of literature, draw conclusions about a topic, and identify research gaps.  By understanding the current state of the literature, you can show how new research fits into the larger research landscape.  

A Literature Review is NOT:

• Just a summary of sources
• A review of everything written on a particular topic
• A research paper arguing for a specific viewpoint - a lit review should avoid bias and highlight areas of disagreements
• A systematic review

Purposes of a Literature Review

• Explain the background of research on a topic
• Demonstrate the importance of a topic
• Suggest new areas of research
• Identify major themes, concepts, and researchers in a topic
• Identify critical gaps, points of disagreement, or flawed approaches for a research topic

Literature Review Process

1. choose a topic & create a research question.

• Use a narrow research question for more focused search results
• Use a question framework such as PICO to develop your research question
• Break down your research question into searchable concepts and keywords
• See our Developing a Research Topic LibGuide for more information, or ask your liaison librarian for help

2. Select the sources for searching & develop a search strategy

• Identify databases to search for articles in
• Reach out to your liaison librarian for recommended databases for your research topic
• Develop a comprehensive search strategy using keywords, controlled vocabularies, and Boolean operators. 
• See the Developing a Search Strategy page for more information. Reach out to a librarian if you have any questions.

3. Conduct the search

• Use a consistent search strategy, keeping it as similar as possible between the different databases you use
• Reach out to your liaison librarian for assistance translating searches between databases
• Use a citation manager to organize your search results

4. Review the references

• Review each reference and remove articles that are not relevant to your research question
• Take notes on each reference you keep. Consider using an excel spreadsheet or other standardized way of summarizing information from each article
• Use Interlibrary Loan for any articles without full-text access

5. Summarize Findings

• Synthesize the findings from the articles you reviewed into a final paper
• The paper should cover the themes identified in the research, explain any conflicts or disagreements in the research, identify research gaps and potential future research areas, and explain the importance of the research topic.
• Use Sage Research Methods to learn more about writing a literature review

Narrative Review Guidance

• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It An overview of a literature review and questions to ask yourself while reviewing references.
• Ten simple rules for writing a literature review In this contribution, the author shares ten simple rules learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and post doctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Example Narrative Reviews

• Usability and feasibility of multimedia interventions for engaging patients in their care in the context of acute recovery: A narrative review. The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the usability and feasibility of multimedia intervention as a platform to enable patient participation in the context of acute recovery and to discover what outcomes have been measured.
• Physical therapies for the conservative treatment of the trigger finger: a narrative review. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of physical therapies as conservative treatment for trigger finger.
• Covid-19 Pandemic: What Changes for Dentists and Oral Medicine Experts? A Narrative Review and Novel Approaches to Infection Containment. The authors performed a narrative review on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome- CoronaVirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and all infectious agents with the primary endpoints to illustrate the most accepted models of safety protocols in dentistry and oral medicine, and to propose an easy view of the problem and a comparison (pre- vs post-COVID19) for the most common dental procedures.
• << Previous: Literature Reviews
• Next: Developing a Search Strategy >>
• Last Updated: Dec 1, 2023 4:31 PM
• URL: https://guides.atsu.edu/litreview

Types of Literature Reviews : Home

• Health Science Information Consortium of Toronto
• University Health Network - New
• Types of Literature Reviews

Need More Help?

• Knowledge Synthesis Services
• Literature Search Request
• The Right Review for You - Workshop Recording (YouTube) 27min video From UHN Libraries Recorded Nov 2021
• The Screening Phase for Reviews Tutorial This tutorial presents information on the screening process for systematic reviews or other knowledge syntheses, and contains a variety of resources for successfully preparing to complete this important research stage.
• Workshops Find more UHN Libraries workshops, live and on-demand, and other learning opportunities helpful for knowledge synthesis projects.

How to Choose Your Review Method

TREAD* Lightly and Consider...

• Available T ime for conducting your review
• Any R esource constraints within which you must deliver your review
• Any requirements for specialist E xpertise in order to complete the review
• The requirements of the A udience for your review and its intended purpose
• The richness, thickness and availability of D ata within included studies

* Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D.  Systematic approaches to a successful literature review.  2nd edition.  Los Angeles, CA:  Sage, 2016.  (p.36)

How do I write a Review Protocol?

• What is a Protocol? (UofT)
• Guidance on Registering a Review with PROSPERO

Writing Resources

• Advice on Academic Writing (University of Toronto)
• How to write a great research paper using reporting guidelines (EQUATOR Network)
• Instructions to Authors in the Health Sciences
• Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals (ICMJE)
• Referencing and Writing Help (Michener Institute)
• Writing resources guide (BMC)

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides an overview of what's been written about a specific topic. It is a generic term. There are many different types of literature reviews which can cover a wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. Choosing the type of review you wish to conduct will depend on the purpose of your review, and the time and resources you have available.

This page will provide definitions of some of the most common review types in the health sciences and links to relevant reporting guidelines or methodological papers.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal . 2009 Jun 1;26(2):91-108. 

• Summary of Five Types of Reviews Table summarizing the characteristics, guidelines etc. of 5 common types of review article.

Traditional (Narrative) Review

Traditional (narrative) literature reviews provide a broad overview of a research topic with no clear methodological approach. Information is collected and interpreted unsystematically with subjective summaries of findings. Authors aim to describe and discuss the literature from a contextual or theoretical point of view. Although the reviews may be conducted by topic experts, due to preconceived ideas or conclusions, they could be subject to bias. This sort of literature review can be appropriate if you have a broad topic area, are working on your own, or have time constraints.

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade . Journal of Chiropractic Medicine . 2006;5(3):101-117. doi:10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6.

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews . Medical Writing. 2015 Dec 1;24(4):230-5.

Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews ? European journal of clinical investigation . 2018;48:e12931.

Knowledge Synthesis

Literature reviews using systematic methods fall under the knowledge synthesis umbrella. Knowledge synthesis can be defined as “…the contextualization and integration of research findings of individual research studies within the larger body of knowledge on the topic. A synthesis must be reproducible and transparent in its methods, using quantitative and/or qualitative methods. It could take the form of a systematic review, follow the methods developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, result from a consensus conference or expert panel or synthesize qualitative or quantitative results. Realist syntheses, narrative syntheses, meta-analyses, meta-syntheses and practice guidelines are all forms of synthesis.” (Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2016, July 28). Knowledge Translation. Retrieved April 26, 2018, from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.htm l. )

Grimshaw J. A Guide to Knowledge Synthesis [Internet]. CIHR. Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2010.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Synthesis Resources [Internet]. CIHR. Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2013.

Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, van der Wilt, Gert Jan, et al.  Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches . Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2018;99:41-52.

Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, et al. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review . BMC Medical Research Methodology . 2012;12:114. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-114.

Kastner M, Antony J, Soobiah C, Straus SE, Tricco AC. Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology . 2016;73:43-49.

Knowledge Synthesis Services at UHN

Common Types of Knowledge Syntheses

• Systematic Reviews
• Meta-Analysis
• Scoping Reviews
• Rapid or Restricted Reviews
• Clinical Practice Guidelines
• Realist Reviews
• Mixed Methods Reviews
• Qualitative Synthesis
• Narrative Synthesis

A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias, in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making. (See Section 1.2 in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions .)

A systematic review is not the same as a traditional (narrative) review or a literature review. Unlike other kinds of reviews, systematic reviews must be as thorough and unbiased as possible, and must also make explicit how the search was conducted. Systematic reviews may or may not include a meta-analysis.

On average, a systematic review project takes a year. If your timelines are shorter, you may wish to consider other types of synthesis projects or a traditional (narrative) review. See suggested timelines for a Cochrane Review for reference.

Systematic Review Overview (UHN)

Systematic Review Overview workshop recording (UHN)

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

Greyson D, Rafferty E, Slater L, et al. Systematic review searches must be systematic, comprehensive, and transparent: a critique of Perman et al. BMC public health . 2019;19:153.

Ioannidis J. P. (2016). The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses . The Milbank quarterly , 94 (3), 485-514.

Yale University Library.  Systematic Reviews and Evidence Synthesis: Review Types .

A subset of systematic reviews. Meta-analysis is a technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results.

"..a form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed at mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research related to a defined area or field by systematically searching, selecting and synthesizing existing knowledge." (Colquhoun, HL et al., 2014)

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework .   International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice , 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616.

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H. & O'Brien, K.K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology . Implementation Sci 5 , 69 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., . . . Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 67(12), 1291-1294. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews . Int.J.Evid Based.Healthc . 2015 Sep;13(3):141-146.

Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis , JBI, 2020.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation . Ann Intern Med . [Epub ahead of print ] doi: 10.7326/M18-0850.

“…a type of knowledge synthesis in which systematic review processes are accelerated and methods are streamlined to complete the review more quickly than is the case for typical systematic reviews. Rapid reviews take an average of 5–12 weeks to complete, thus providing evidence within a shorter time frame required for some health policy and systems decisions.” (Tricco AC et al., 2017)

Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews . Implementation Science : IS . 2010;5:56. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-56.

Langlois EV, Straus SE, Antony J, King VJ, Tricco AC. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage . BMJ Global Health . 2019;4:e001178.

Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE, editors. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide . Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T , Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment . International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care . 2008;24(2):133-9.

“Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.” Source: Institute of Medicine. (1990). Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program, M.J. Field and K.N. Lohr (eds.) Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Page 38.

–Disclosure of any author conflicts of interest

AGREE Reporting Checklist

Alonso-Coello, P., Oxman, A. D., Moberg, J., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Akl, E. A., Davoli, M., ... & Guyatt, G. H. (2016). GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines . BMJ , 353 , i2089.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions . Journal of Health Services Research & Policy . 2005;10:21-34.

Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research . Implementation science : IS . 2012;7:33.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Realist methods in medical education research: what are they and what can they contribute? Medical Education . 2012;46(1):89-96.

"Mixed-methods systematic reviews can be defined as combining the findings of qualitative and quantitative studies within a single systematic review to address the same overlapping or complementary review questions." (Harden A, 2010)

Harden A.   Mixed-Methods Systematic Reviews: Integrating quantitative and qualitative findings .   NCDDR:FOCUS. 2010.

Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews . Annual review of public health . 2014;35:29-45.

Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews . International journal of evidence-based healthcare . 2015;13:121-131.

The Joanna Briggs Institute 2014 Reviewers Manual: Methodology for JBI Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews .

There are various methods for integrating the results from qualitative studies. "Systematic reviews of qualitative research have an important role in informing the delivery of evidence-based healthcare. Qualitative systematic reviews have investigated the culture of communities, exploring how consumers experience, perceive and manage their health and journey through the health system, and can evaluate components and activities of health services such as health promotion and community development." (Lockwood C et al., 2015)

Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, van der Wilt, Gert Jan, et al. Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches . Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2018;99:41-52.

Ring N, Jepson R, Ritchie K. Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment . International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care . 2011;27:384-390.

Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation . International journal of evidence-based healthcare . 2015;13:179-187.

France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance . Journal of advanced nursing . 2019.

Seers K. Qualitative systematic reviews: their importance for our understanding of research relevant to pain . Br J Pain . 2015;9(1):36-40.

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2009;9:59. Published 2009 Aug 11. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59.

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2008;8:45. Published 2008 Jul 10. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series . Implementation science : IS . 2018;13:2.

"Narrative synthesis refers to an approach to the systematic review and synthesis of findings from multiple studies that relies primarily on the use of words and text to summarise and explain the findings of the synthesis. Whilst narrative synthesis can involve the manipulation of statistical data, the defining characteristic is that it adopts a textual approach to the process of synthesis to ‘tell the story’ of the findings from the included studies." (Popay J, 2006)

Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Antony J, et al. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology . 2016;73:19-28.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews . Lancaster: ESRC Research Methods Programme; 2006.

Snilstveit B, Oliver S, Vojtkova M. Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice . Journal of development effectiveness . 2012 Sep 1;4(3):409-29. 

Lucas PJ, Baird J, Arai L, Law C, Roberts HM. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews . BMC medical research methodology . 2007 Dec;7(1):4.

Ryan R. Cochrane Consumer sand Communication Review Group. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group: data synthesis and analysis . June 2013.

• Last Updated: Oct 3, 2023 2:52 PM
• URL: https://guides.hsict.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=705263

We acknowledge this sacred land on which the University Health Network operates. For thousands of years it has been the traditional territory of the Huron-Wendat, the Haudenosaunee, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. This territory was the subject of the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the Confederacy of the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. Today, the meeting place of Toronto is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and learn on this territory

UHN Library and Information Services

Systematic Review, Scoping Review, Narrative Review – What’s the Difference?

Literature review articles use database searches to identify, collate, and analyze available evidence on a topic. Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and narrative reviews are different evidence-collection and synthesis approaches.

But which type of review is (and isn’t) right for your research question? And how reliable are the findings of different review types?

There are distinctive features, aims, and scope between systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and narrative reviews . Let’s look at each and then pair them up to know which one you’ll need, whether you need ideas and references or you’re looking to write your own review.

• What you’ll learn in this post
• The difference (and similarity) between a systematic review, scoping review, and narrative review.
• The features and value of each of these types of review.
• Side-by-side feature comparison charts of each review type.
• Where to educate yourself on reviews, and how to get expert guidance from published researchers.

What is a systematic review?

Definition and history, key functions and features, what is a scoping review, what is a narrative review, main differences between a systematic review and a scoping review, main differences between a systematic review and a narrative review, main differences between a scoping review and a narrative review.

We don’t have a universal or standard definition of systematic reviews . A systematic review usually is a critical assessment of all the literature addressing a well-defined question. It aims to give the best possible answer based on available evidence.

Systematic reviews follow structured and predefined methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize the relevant literature. They use specific inclusion and exclusion criteria based on strict protocols, such as the PRISMA statement or Cochrane Protocol .

A meta-analysis is a systematic review that, in addition to a narrative summary, combines all the studies’ results into a single statistical analysis. The PRISMA 2020 Checklist offers guidance on how to conduct a meta-analysis.

Systematic reviews ensure that the results are reliable and meaningful to end-users, so they’re widely considered the strongest source for evidence-based healthcare .

Systematic reviews in healthcare began to appear in the 1970s and 1980s . Groups promoting evidence-based healthcare, like Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), emerged in the 1990s.

Systematic reviews have been widely used since then. They are necessary for clinicians to keep up to date with their field. They are also often used to inform the development of clinical guidelines and practice .

A systematic review aims to:

• Uncover the international evidence on a particular topic
• Confirm current practice; address uncertainty or variation in practice; identify new practices
• Find and inform areas for future research
• Locate and investigate mixed or conflicting results
• Produce statements to guide decision-making

Traditionally, researchers mainly carried out systematic reviews to assess the effectiveness of health interventions. In this respect, PROSPERO serves as an international database of registered systematic reviews in health and social care sciences. Or in other fields where there is a health-related outcome.

A 2020 systematic review appraising the most effective interventions for depression in heart failure patients is a good example of this approach.They explored six common interventions, medical and non-medical. It found that collaborative care and psychotherapy were the most effective treatments.

But systematic reviews have gone beyond assessing a treatment’s feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, or effectiveness. They’re widely used to measure the cost-effectiveness or impact of socioeconomic interventions.

This review gives an economic appraisal of the clinical outcomes and economic effectiveness of different economic evaluations used for pharmacy services studies in health systems. It found these evaluations are increasingly used to understand which healthcare services provide value for money amid limited healthcare resources.

Systematic reviews are essential for robustly addressing specific questions. But sometimes they might not be able to meet your specific aims or research project requirements. Or you might need a methodologically rigorous and structured preliminary scoping activity to inform how future systematic reviews are done.

That’s where scoping reviews come into play. They’re sometimes called scoping exercises/scoping studies . Scoping reviews rapidly map the size, characteristics, or scope of existing literature in a field of interest. They can help you locate research gaps and needs.

Scoping reviews are “younger” than systematic reviews. They emerged in the early 2000s . There used to be some confusion around their definition and the steps involved in the scoping review process. But, in 2015, a methodological working group of the JBI produced formal guidance for conducting scoping reviews. Likewise, the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018.

Researchers usually carry out a scoping review to:

• Identify the types of evidence in a given field. For example, a scoping review by Challen et al. sought to find the types of available evidence regarding the source and quality of publications and grey literature around emergency planning.
• Clarify crucial concepts or terms in the literature.
• Examine how research is conducted on a specific topic or field. A scoping review of that kind explored the scope of the literature around interventions aimed to improve health care quality in populations with osteoarthritis.
• Identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept.
• As a precursor to a systematic review (examining emerging evidence to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions).
• Identify and analyze knowledge gaps.

A narrative review is a thorough and critical overview of previously published research on the author’s specific topic of interest. It’s also referred to as a traditional review or a literature review.

Narrative reviews are helpful in the following ways:

• You can read them as a general and accurate guide to what is already known about a given topic.
• They are a key part of the research process. They help you establish a theoretical and methodological framework or context for your research.
• By doing a literature review, you can locate existing patterns and trends. This helps you find the gaps in your field and formulate a meaningful research question.

So, like the systematic and scoping reviews, a narrative review appraises, critiques, and summarizes a topic’s available research.

For example, this narrative review sums up the evidence on exercise interventions in improving the health aspects of patients with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease.This narrative review is provided for the clinical development programs for non-oral, non-injectable formulations of dihydroergotamine (DHE) to treat migraine.

But, narrative reviews are far less systematic and rigorous. They’re evidence-based but not always considered massively helpful in terms of the scientific evidence they bring . They’re much more prone to selection bias.

For example, a review paper comparing seven narrative reviews with two systematic reviews found that narrative reviews of the same studies reached different conclusions. So, when you read or assess a narrative review, watch out for certain biases in data search methods.

Systematic reviews and scoping reviews similarly use rigorous and transparent methods to comprehensively identify and analyze all the relevant literature. Their differences in aims and scope are subtle but clear.

Systematic reviews differ greatly from narrative reviews.

As seen, systematic reviews answer a narrow question through detailed and comprehensive literature searches. But narrative reviews are more descriptive. They provide authors’ subjective perspectives on a focused but broader topic.

Scoping reviews and narrative reviews have similar differences to systematic reviews and narrative reviews. Their key difference is that narrative reviews do not follow a standardized methodology.

Any of the above reviews is a big undertaking, and very rewarding. When you need some help in any stage of the process, we have a big range of services. We’ll connect you with publication experts to guide you through the process. Explore Edanz research services here .

Also be sure to grab the free systematic review “12P” checklist below!

The 12P Method for Systematic Reviews

We’ve squeezed all the steps and stages of a typical systematic review onto one page.

You can print it out A4-sized and use it as a handy checklist, or A3-sized for your laboratory wall. You can even share it with your co-authors.

FREE PDF CHECKLIST

• Researcher Services
• English Editing
• Learning Lab
• Smart Tools
• Journal Selector
• About Edanz
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Services & Pricing
• 特定商取引法に基づく表記