This article has a great summary on the evolution of the systematic review method
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
"If reviews are ‘a review of existing research using explicit, accountable rigorous research methods’, then all reviews, whether numerical or narrative, are systematic if they follow the tenets of research: of being rigorous and transparent. This applies to all levels of research whether these be primary studies, secondary analysis of primary data, reviews of research, or reviews of reviews."
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2019). Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2
Reviews types address different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108 doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
"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."
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
This expands somewhat on the earlier article.
Paré, G., & Kitsiou, S. (2017). Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. University of Victoria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/
See table 9.1 Typology of Literature Reviews
Systematic reviews are a useful tool for decision-makers because they can be used to interpret the results of individual studies within the context of the totality of evidence and provide the evidence-base for knowledge translation products, such as patient decision aids, clinical practice guidelines or policy briefs.
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), W65-94. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136
Systematic Reviews are conducted to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice. Used for decision making. They provide synthesized evidence using robust, prespecified methods to reduce bias and enable better decision-making by healthcare professionals, patients, and policy makers. 1,2 Transparent reporting is essential because it enables readers to evaluate the value of systematic reviews and to identify potential sources of bias that impact the review’s findings.3
1 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2025, from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
2 Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research (with Eden, J.). (2011). Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. National Academies Press. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24983062/
3 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
"Aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them/"
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), 376–380. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006
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/
Designed by Jessica Kaufman, Cochrane Consumers & Communication Review Group, Centre for Health Communication & Participation, La Trobe University, 2011
Uses statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size.
Paré, G., & Kitsiou, S. (2017). Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. University of Victoria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/
See table 9.1 Typology of Literature Reviews
"Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses, these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect."
Borenstein, Michael et al. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Second edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2021. Print.
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.
The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. https://www.prisma-statement.org/scoping
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.
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6