Definition:
"A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265).
Characteristics:
Example:
Mitchell, L. E., & Zajchowski, C. A. (2022). The history of air quality in Utah: A narrative review. Sustainability, 14(15), 9653. doi.org/10.3390/su14159653
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Definition:
"An assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue...using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 100).
Characteristics:
Learn more about the method:
Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic reviews, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries. (2021). Rapid Review Protocol.
Example:
Quarmby, S., Santos, G., & Mathias, M. (2019). Air quality strategies and technologies: A rapid review of the international evidence. Sustainability, 11(10), 2757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102757
Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Definition:
Developed and refined by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), this review "map[s] out and categorize[s] existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 97).
Characteristics:
Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a review question, rather than a topic
Mapping reviews are "best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (Booth, 2016, p. 14)
Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview
Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search
Learn more about the method:
Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?". Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 104(1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013
Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic reviews, 5(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
Example:
Tainio, M., Andersen, Z. J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Hu, L., De Nazelle, A., An, R., ... & de Sá, T. H. (2021). Air pollution, physical activity and health: A mapping review of the evidence. Environment international, 147, 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105954
Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842.
Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Definition:
"A type of review that has as its primary objective the identification of the size and quality of research in a topic area in order to inform subsequent review" (Booth et al., 2012, p. 269).
Characteristics:
Learn more about the methods:
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science: IS, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Example:
Rahman, A., Sarkar, A., Yadav, O. P., Achari, G., & Slobodnik, J. (2021). Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure to nano-and microplastics and knowledge gaps: A scoping review. Science of the Total Environment, 757, 143872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143872
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Definition:
A review that "[compiles] evidence from multiple...reviews into one accessible and usable document" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 103). While originally intended to be a compilation of Cochrane reviews, it now generally refers to any kind of evidence synthesis.
Characteristics:
Learn more about the method:
Choi, G. J., & Kang, H. (2022). The umbrella review: a useful strategy in the rain of evidence. The Korean Journal of Pain, 35(2), 127–128. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127
Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
Example:
Rojas-Rueda, D., Morales-Zamora, E., Alsufyani, W. A., Herbst, C. H., Al Balawi, S. M., Alsukait, R., & Alomran, M. (2021). Environmental risk factors and health: An umbrella review of meta-analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Dealth, 18(2), 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020704
Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Definition:
A meta-analysis is a "technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the result" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 98).
Characteristics:
Learn more about the method:
Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A. (2002). Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-10
Example:
Hites R. A. (2004). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the environment and in people: a meta-analysis of concentrations. Environmental Science & Technology, 38(4), 945–956. https://doi.org/10.1021/es035082g
Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Definition:
A systematic review "seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and [synthesize] research evidence, often adhering to the guidelines on the conduct of a review" provided by discipline-specific organizations, such as the Cochrane Collaboration (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102).
Characteristics:
Example:
Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(4), 4354–4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354
Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Definition:
"Systematized reviews attempt to include one or more elements of the systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102). When a systematic review approach is adapted to produce a more manageable scope, while still retaining the rigor of a systematic review such as risk of bias assessment and the use of a protocol, this is often referred to as a structured review (Huelin et al., 2015).
Characteristics:
Example:
Salvo, G., Lashewicz, B. M., Doyle-Baker, P. K., & McCormack, G. R. (2018). Neighbourhood built environment influences on physical activity among adults: A systematized review of qualitative evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(5), 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050897
Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K., & Sandman, K. (2015). What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. https://www.evidera.com/resource/whats-in-a-name-systematic-and-non-systematic-literature-reviews-and-why-the-distinction-matters/
| Type | Description | Search | Appraisal | Synthesis | Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical review | Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model. | Seeks to identify significant items in the field. | No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution. | Typically narrative, perhaps conceptual or chronological. | Significant component: seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory. |
| Literature review | Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings. | May or may not include comprehensive searching. | May or may not include quality assessment. | Typically narrative. | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. |
|
Mapping review / Systematic map |
Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature. | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. | No formal quality assessment. | May be graphical and tabular. | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research. |
| Meta-analysis | Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. | Aims for exhaustive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness. | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses. | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary. | Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity. |
| Mixed methods review | Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies. | Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies. | Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists. | Typically both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies. | Analysis may characterize both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other. |
| Overview | Generic term: summary of the literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics. | May or may not include comprehensive searching (depends whether systematic overview or not). | May or may not include quality assessment (depends whether systematic overview or not). | Synthesis depends on whether systematic or not. Typically narrative but may include tabular features. | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. |
| Qualitative systematic review | Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies. | May employ selective or purposive sampling. | Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion. | Qualitative, narrative synthesis. | Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models. |
| Rapid review | Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research. | Completeness of searching determined by time constraints. | Time-limited formal quality assessment. | Typically narrative and tabular. | Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature. |
| Scoping review | Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research). | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress. | No formal quality assessment. | Typically tabular with some narrative commentary. | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review. |
| State-of-the-art review | Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research. | Aims for comprehensive searching of current literature. | No formal quality assessment. | Typically narrative, may have tabular accompaniment. | Current state of knowledge and priorities for future investigation and research. |
| Systematic review | Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesize research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review. | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion. | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment. | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research. |
|
Systematic search and review |
Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’. | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. | May or may not include quality assessment. | Minimal narrative, tabular summary of studies. | What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations. |
| Systematized review | Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment. | May or may not include comprehensive searching. | May or may not include quality assessment. | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment. | What is known; uncertainty around findings; limitations of methodology. |
| Umbrella review | Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results. | Identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies. | Quality assessment of studies within component reviews and/or of reviews themselves. | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary. | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; recommendations for future research. |
Reproduced from Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Adapted from Cornell University's What Type of Review is Right for You?
