On this page you find a short description of the most common review types, based on the comparison made in Grant and Booth (2009). There are also links to a decision tool, which can help you identify the type of review that fits the purpose of your work.
Common review types
|
Type |
Aim |
Search |
Quality Appraisal |
Evidence Synthesis |
Analysis |
|
Narrative Review |
To provide a comprehensive overview of a topic or issue by summarizing the literature. |
Broad search aimed at identifying significant contributions and themes. |
Informal and often subjective, with no explicit criteria. |
Summarizes findings to provide an overview of a topic. |
Descriptive and thematic analysis. |
|
Systematic Review |
To address specific research questions through a structured and pre-defined method. |
Exhaustive search aiming for comprehensive coverage of relevant studies. |
Rigorous and explicit criteria used to assess the quality of included studies. |
Integrates findings from multiple studies using a systematic method. |
Quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative synthesis. |
|
Scoping Review |
To map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. |
Broad search to identify the range and nature of research evidence. |
No formal quality appraisal, but some may include basic relevance checks. |
Provides an overview of the existing literature, identifying gaps and trends. |
Descriptive analysis, thematic mapping. |
|
Critical Review |
To critically evaluate and synthesize the literature on a topic, providing a narrative account. |
Selective search focusing on critical and seminal works. |
Critical appraisal to assess the quality and contribution of each study. |
Synthesizes findings to provide a comprehensive and critical perspective. |
Critical and conceptual analysis. |
|
Qualitative Review |
To interpret and synthesize qualitative findings to generate new insights or theories. |
Focused search for qualitative studies relevant to the research question. |
Appraisal of methodological quality and relevance of qualitative studies. |
Synthesizes qualitative data to develop themes or theories. |
Thematic synthesis, meta-ethnography |
|
Integrative Review |
To synthesize literature from diverse methodologies to provide a comprehensive understanding. |
Broad search encompassing various types of studies (qualitative, quantitative, theoretical). |
Rigorous appraisal to assess quality across different study designs. |
Integrates diverse forms of evidence to draw comprehensive conclusions. |
Mixed-methods synthesis, narrative integration. |
|
Meta-analysis |
To statistically combine results from multiple quantitative studies to determine overall effect size. |
Exhaustive search focuses on studies with quantitative data. |
Rigorous quality appraisal to ensure the validity and reliability of included studies. |
Combines statistical results from different studies to produce a summary effect size. |
Statistical analysis, effect size calculation. |
|
Rapid Review |
To provide a quick, but systematic, synthesis of evidence to inform decision-making. |
Focused and limited search to balance comprehensiveness and timeliness. |
Abbreviated quality appraisal, often using simplified checklists. |
Provides a summary of evidence within a limited timeframe. |
Accelerated evidence synthesis, rapid thematic or quantitative analysis. |
|
Type |
Aim |
Search |
Quality Appraisal |
Evidence Synthesis |
Analysis |
|
Critical Review |
To critically evaluate and synthesise the literature on a topic, providing a narrative account. |
Selective search focusing on critical and seminal works. |
Critical appraisal to assess the quality and contribution of each study. |
Synthesises findings to provide a comprehensive and critical perspective. |
Critical and conceptual analysis. |
|
Integrative Review |
To synthesise literature from diverse methodologies to provide a comprehensive understanding. |
Broad search encompassing various types of studies (qualitative, quantitative, theoretical). |
Rigorous appraisal to assess quality across different study designs. |
Integrates diverse forms of evidence to draw comprehensive conclusions. |
Mixed-methods synthesis, narrative integration. |
|
Narrative Review |
To provide a comprehensive overview of a topic or issue by summarising the literature. |
Broad search aimed at identifying significant contributions and themes. |
Informal and often subjective, with no explicit criteria. |
Summarises findings to provide an overview of a topic. |
Descriptive and thematic analysis. |
|
State of the Art Review |
To provide an up-to-date, comprehensive overview of the most current research in a specific area. |
Exhaustive search focusing on the latest studies and developments. |
Rigorous and selective appraisal to include only the most current and relevant studies. |
Synthesises recent findings to highlight current trends and advancements. |
Descriptive analysis, trend analysis. |
|
Narrative Summary |
To summarise the findings of various studies on a topic, providing a descriptive account. |
Broad search to cover a wide range of relevant literature. |
Informal appraisal, focusing on the relevance and contribution of studies. |
Summarises key findings without systematic synthesis. |
Descriptive and thematic analysis. |
A guide to review types based on the work of Sutton et al., (2019) on 'Review Families', developed by the library at the University of Melbourne