| University Libraries
"The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms." Booth and colleague conducted a study is to describe "the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains."
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. PMID: 19490148.
"Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574114/
From https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview
|
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. |
"This rapid growth in undertaking reviews of the literature has resulted in a plethora of terminology to describe approaches that, despite their different names, share certain essential characteristics, namely, collecting, evaluating and presenting the available research evidence. The following lists some of the labels in current usage: (full) systematic review; meta‐analysis; rapid review; (traditional) literature review; narrative review; research synthesis; and structured review. There do not appear to be any consistent definitions of these different review ‘animals’, with the result that researchers may use labels loosely. For instance, there is a risk that reviews defined by their authors as ‘systematic’ may not all adopt the same high standards in terms of protection against bias and the quality assessment for the selection of primary research. On this basis the correct label would be ‘literature review’ and not ‘systematic review’."
Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology [Internet]. 2005;8(1):19–32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Scoping reviews serve to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of literature on a topic. Among other objectives, scoping reviews help determine whether a systematic review of the literature is warranted. Scoping reviews follow the same procedures of a systematic review, except:
| Scoping review | Systematic review | |
|---|---|---|
| Research question | Broadly defined | Highly focused |
| Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Developed post hoc at study selection stage | Developed at protocol stage |
| Study selection | All study types | Defined study types |
| Data extraction | “Charts” data according to key issues, themes, etc. |
Synthesizes & aggregates findings |
From https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/systematicreviews
The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2015: Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews
How is a Systematic Review different from a Literature Review?
"This type of review is a specific methodology that aims to comprehensively identify all relevant studies on a specific topic, and to select appropriate studies based on explicit criteria. In addition, the methodological quality of the studies included is assessed by on the basis of explicit criteria, such as the presence of a pre-test or a control group. In contrast to a conventional literature review, a systematic review (SR) is transparent, verifiable, and reproducible, and, as a result, the likelihood of bias is considerably smaller." Center for Evidence Based Management, https://www.cebma.org/faq/what-is-a-systematic-review/
For information on how to write a literature review:
Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2019). Writing the literature review : a practical guide . The Guilford Press.
|
|
Systematic review |
Literature review |
|
Question |
Focused on a single question |
Not necessarily focused on a single question, but may describe an overview |
|
Protocol |
A peer review protocol or plan is included |
No protocol is included |
|
Background |
Both provide summaries of the available literature on a topic |
|
|
Objectives |
Clear objectives are identified |
Objectives may or may not be identified |
|
Inclusion and exclusion criteria |
Criteria stated before the review is conducted |
Criteria not specified |
|
Search strategy |
Comprehensive search conducted in a systematic way |
Strategy not explicitly stated |
|
Process of selecting articles |
Usually clear and explicit |
Not described in a literature review |
|
Process of evaluating articles |
Comprehensive evaluation of study quality |
Evaluation of study quality may or may not be included |
|
Process of extracting relevant information |
Usually clear and specific |
Not clear or explicit |
|
Results and data synthesis |
Clear summaries of studies based on high quality evidence |
Summary based on studies where the quality of the articles may not be expected. May also be influenced by the reviewer's theories, needs and beliefs |
|
Discussion |
Written by an expert or group of experts with a detailed and well grounded knowledge of the issues |
|
"Meta-analysis is the quantitative, scientific synthesis of research results." Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555(7695), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753
From https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview
|
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. |
Shorten A., Shorten B. What is meta-analysis? Evidence-Based Nursing 2013;16:3-4.
Meta-synthesis is a systematic approach to the analysis of data across qualitative studies. -- EJ Erwin, MJ Brotherson, JA Summers. Understanding Qualitative Meta-synthesis. Issues and Opportunities in Early Childhood Intervention Research, 33(3) 186-200.
Why use a meta-synthesis?
Qualitative data is useful for providing a snapshot at one person’s interpretation of an event or phenomenon. By bringing together many different interpretations you are strengthening the evidence for an interpretation by discovering common themes and differences & building new interpretations of the topic of interest. https://abbarker.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/meta-synthesis/
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports is a refereed, online journal that publishes systematic review protocols and systematic reviews of healthcare research following the JBI methodology and undertaken by the Joanna Briggs Institute and its international collaborating centers and groups.
Selected Professional Societies and Associations Guidelines
Clinical Trial Resources
EBM Pyramid and EBM Page Generator, copyright 2006 Trustees of Dartmouth College and Yale University. All Rights Reserved.
Produced by Jan Glover, David Izzo, Karen Odato and Lei Wang.
Systematic reviews ask a specific clinical question, perform a comprehensive literature search, eliminate the poorly done studies and attempt to make practice recommendations based on the well-done studies. A meta-analysis is a systematic review that combines all the results of all the studies into a single statistical analysis of results.
Critically-appraised individual articles evaluate and synopsize individual research studies, while critically-appraised topics evaluate and synthesize multiple research studies.
Case control studies looks at two groups retrospectively--one with the condition and one without-- to determine causes and natural history. Cohort studies are longitudinal studies that follow two groups (a control group and a group the condition of intervention of interest) over time. Randomized controlled double blind studies are the gold standard for medical evidence.
Search using PICO: this is a template to formulate a clinical question 
Intro to EBP from Duke's Introduction to Evidence Based Practice includes PICO structure
Finding the Evidence 1 – Using PICO to formulate a search question Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine