Skip to Main Content

Systematic Reviews and Evidence Synthesis

Choosing the Right Review Type

Common Types of Reviews

  Narrative Literature Review Systematic Review Scoping Review
Definition Qualitatively summarizes evidence on a topic using informal methods to collect and interpret studies. Comprehensive review of all available evidence on a subject, including rigorous methods and quality appraisal. Can include quantitative elements. Comprehensive review of all available evidence on a subject, including rigorous methods. Focuses on qualitative evaluation of research.
Goals Provide a summary or overview of a topic. Answers a clinical question using the current, best available evidence. Summarized the state of the literature on a topic, including trends and research gaps.
Question Can be a general topic or a specific question. Clearly defined and answerable clinical question. Can be a broader, non-clinical question without a defined answer.
Number of Authors One or more At least two At least two
Timeline Weeks to months Months to years. Months to years.
Requirements No widely-accepted standards. Must include systematic search strategy, two-person blinded literature screening. Two-person blinded data extraction. Two-person blinded quality appraisal. May include sophisticated statistical techniques (meta-analysis). Must include systematic search strategy, two-person blinded literature screening. Two-person blinded data extraction. Does not typically include quality appraisal or statistical methods.

Additional Review Types

Other types of reviews/evidence synthesis projects are less common, but are still supported by the Creighton University Libraries. This includes (but it not limited to):

  • Umbrella reviews
  • Rapid reviews
  • Systematized reviews
  • Mixed-methods reviews

Systematic v. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference?

Reviews from other disciplines

Evidence Synthesis for Business Librarians