LibGuides: Writing Literature Reviews: Review Types

Review Types

A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology.

Search strategies, comprehensiveness, and time range covered vary and do not follow an established protocol.
Typically organized into three sections: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion.
- Introduction: often introduces the topic and explains the significance of the research topic or question. It also tends to lay out the organization of the review, so readers know what to expect.
- Body: often identifies relevant sources and discusses them with a critical eye by summarizing and exploring the strengths and weaknesses of each resource. It also tends to provide background information by providing more context or perspective on the topic, and discusses flaws in the research methodology, gaps in findings, and any anomalies across the research landscape.
- Conclusion: often summarizes the key findings, points out gaps in the published literature, identifies problems or biases in the research, and makes potential recommendations for future research.

Read more:

Purdue Owl: Writing a Lit Review
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review (PubMed Central Article)
Hempel, S. (2020). Conducting your literature review. American Psychological Association.

Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic.

Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review.
Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider.

Applies systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting.

Employs methodological “shortcuts” (limiting search terms for example) at the risk of introducing bias
Useful for addressing issues needing quick decisions.
See Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach for methodological guidance.

Read more:

Featherstone, R. M., Dryden, D. M., Foisy, M., Guise, J.-M., Mitchell, M. D., Paynter, R. A., Robinson, K. A., Umscheid, C. A., & Hartling, L. (2015). Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: An analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Systematic Reviews, 4, 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4
Patnode, C. D., Eder, M. L., Walsh, E. S., Viswanathan, M., & Lin, J. S. (2018). The Use of Rapid Review Methods for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 54(1, Supplement 1), S19–S25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.02
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), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6

Also known as mapping reviews. Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing evidence on a broad topic or set of research questions.

Seeks to identify research gaps and opportunities for evidence synthesis.
May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would.
May take longer than a systematic review
See Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework for methodological guidance
See Environmental Evidence Journal Systematic Maps and Guidance on Systematic Maps—CIFOR.

Read more:

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

A statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies.

Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results
May be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review.