Although systematic reviews are the most recognized type of evidence synthesis, there are many other types of evidence reviews. Elements like the size of your team, timeline for the project, and specificity of your research question can help determine the type of review that is most appropriate for your research question.
| Literature review/Narrative review |
- provides a general overview of available literature on a topic
- may or may not include comprehensive literature searching
- completeness/ comprehensiveness determined by the reviewer
- results are typically narrative
|
| Scoping Review |
- seeks to identify the characteristics and extent of the literature on a topic
- often used to identify gaps in the evidence and topics for potential systematic reviews
- requires comprehensive literature searching in multiple databases
- results typically include tables and narrative
|
| Systematic Review |
- seeks to answer a specific question by analyzing the existing literature
- requires systematic and comprehensive searching
- adheres to strict guidelines for conduct and reporting
- studies are assessed for quality
- results presented as tables and narrative
|
| Rapid Review |
- typically used to address policy, practice, or emerging issues
- uses systematic review methods but allows for modifications based on time or resource constraints
- completeness of search is determined by available time and resources
- studies are assessed for quality
- results presented as tables and narrative
|
| Umbrella Review |
- a review that compiles evidence from other reviews
- focuses on a broad issue and describes reviews that address specific aspects of the issue (e.g. interventions)
- search is focused on identifying review articles rather than primary studies
- reviews and/or studies within the reviews are assessed for quality
- results presented in graphs, tables, and narrative
|
Source: Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Image from University of Cincinnati Libraries