Planning For Your Expert Literature Review

Are you thinking of initiating an expert literature review for your thesis, capstone, or eventual publication? Understand the different types of reviews and how one or the other might be more appropriate for your topic.

Use the guide navigation to view standards and guides, tools and resources, and literature searching tips.

Which review is right for you? Find out more with the RightReview tool.

• Akl, E.A., Haddaway, N., Rada, G., & Lotfi, T. (2020). Evidence synthesis 2.0: when systematic, scoping, rapid, living, and overviews of reviews come together? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.025
• Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276

Systematic reviews historically examined the effect or comparison of one treatment against another. Currently, a systematic review methodology can be used for topics involving effectiveness, diagnostic text accuracy, etiology, risk, incidence, prevalence, qualitative research, and more.

• Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A. (Eds.). (2020 update). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current
• Campbell, M., McKenzie, J. E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S. V., Brennan, S. E., Ellis, S., ... & Thomson, H. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ, 368.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890
• Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Eden, J., Levit, L., Berg, A., & Morton, S. (Eds.). (2011). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. National Academies Press (US). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24983062/
• Aromataris E, Munn Z (Eds.). (2020). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global and https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01

Scoping Review Conduct

A scoping review maps the body of literature on a topic (often a broad topic) and identifies key concepts and research gaps. It may include data from any type of evidence and research methodology. It can be used as a standalone project or as a preliminary step to a systematic review.

• Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. http://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
• Munn, Z., Peters, M., 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
• Peters, M., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2021). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277
• Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385. http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123

Scoping Review Reporting

Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.D.J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E.A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M.G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C.M., Macdonald, M.T., Langlois, E.V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunçalp Ö., Straus, S.E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-473.https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850

Scoping Review Protocols

Scoping reviews should have a protocol. This protocol can follow the PRISMA-Protocol extension. It should be registered with your institutional repository, figshare, or OSF.

An integrative review critiques and synthesizes the literature on a topic in an integrated way to generate new frameworks or perspectives on the topic. It allows for the inclusion of several study designs (e.g. experimental/nonexperimental, theoretical studies/empirical literature). It is also known as a “comprehensive review” or a “critical overview.”

• Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. http://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

A rapid review provides a rapid synthesis of knowledge about a policy or clinical practice issue and attempts to inform an evidence-based decision as soon as possible. It follows all of the stages of a systematic knowledge synthesis but may modify a stage to shorten the timescale.

• Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., ... & Stevens, A. (2020). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
• Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1, 10. http://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10

A realist review looks to identify and explain social interventions or programs and the interactions between context, mechanisms, and outcomes for policy makers. It seeks to answer the question, “What works, for whom, in what circumstances?” It embraces multiple methods (both qualitative and quantitative).

• Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10 Suppl1, 21–34. http://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530

An overview of reviews, or umbrella review, summarizes the evidence from multiple research syntheses into one accessible and usable document. It is based on high-quality, reliable systematic reviews on a specific health problem or topic, and it explores the consistency of findings across reviews

• Aromataris, E., et al. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 132–140. http://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
• Papatheodorou, S. (2019). Umbrella reviews: what they are and why we need them. European Journal of Epidemiology, 34(6), 543-546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00505-6