Which Review is Right for You?
A literature review is a review of existing literature on a topic or research question. Though a traditional literature/narrative review has some general requirements, there are a number of more specific types of literature reviews used in research that have stricter requirements. This chart should help you determine which review is appropriate for your work. Additional information on each type of review including further reading and example papers can be found below under each review heading.
| Literature/ Narrative Review | Mapping review | systematized review | rapid review | scoping review | umbrella review | systematic review | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| research question / Topic | General. Topic may be broad, demonstrates some understanding of a topic | Broad - research question | Narrow | Broad | Broad - research topic | Narrow | Narrow – well-defined research question |
| literature search | Not comprehensive, often sources chosen that support a particular viewpoint rather than all material on a given topic | Somewhat comprehensive | Not comprehensive – may cover just one database or journal | Not comprehensive – shortcuts taken to conduct research in short time frame | Comprehensive | Comprehensive - reviews other reviews | Comprehensive - attempts to find all existing literature on a subject |
| inclusion criteria | Undefined | Explicitly described | Explicitly described | Explicitly described | Explicitly described | Explicitly described | Explicitly described |
| critical appraisal (assessment of risk of bias) | None – lack of systemization can cause bias, often don’t critically assess studies | Not required | Potential for bias due to lack of comprehensiveness, can be done individually | Potential for bias due to limited time frame, limiting of search terms, restricting of literature | Not required | Not required | Systematically evaluates study and risk of bias of each study included |
| analysis / synthesis | Some, narrative format and more qualitative | None | Yes | Some – limited time frame limits thorough analysis | Yes – provides overview on research topic and finds gaps in research | Yes - provides conclusions and finds gaps in research | Yes – provides conclusions and finds gaps in research |
| replicable? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| number of reviewers/ Authors | One | One or more | One or more | Two or more | Two or more | Two or more | Must be at least two |
| required time frame | Undefined | 12 – 18 months | <12 months | < 6 months | 12 – 18 months | 12 – 18 months | 12 – 18 months |
Literature/Narrative Review
Description
A broad term referring to studies which usually review published articles and use some inclusion criteria (could be a formal literature search) and may synthesize and analyze their findings. Search strategies, comprehensiveness, and time range covered vary, and don’t follow an established system. This lack of systematization can introduce bias. They can be written as either a standalone paper or included as part of the introduction of a research article, thesis, or dissertation.
Research Question/Topic: General. Topic may be broad to demonstrate some understanding of a topic.
Literature Search: Not comprehensive; often sources are chosen that support a particular viewpoint rather than all material on a given topic.
Inclusion Criteria: Undefined.
Critical Appraisal: None – lack of systemization can cause bias, often don’t critically assess studies.
Analysis/Synthesis: Some, typically in a narrative format.
Replicable?: No.
Number of Reviewers/Authors: One.
Time Frame Required: No requirement, can take as long as needed but no minimum time required.Further Reading
Galvan, J.L. & Galvan, M. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T. (2016). The literature review: Six steps to success. Corwin.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2016). Seven steps to a comphrenehsive literature review: A multimodal and cultural approach. SAGE.
Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(13), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.7275/b0az-8t74
Ridley, Diana. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. SAGE.Examples
Standalone:
Ledesma, M. C., & Calderón, D. (2015). Critical race theory in education: A review of past literature and a look to the future. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 206-222. https://doi-org.ledproxy2.uwindsor.ca/10.1177/1077800414557825
Introductory:
Adler, M. (2009). Transcending library catalogues: A comparative study of controlled terms in library of congress subject headings and user-generated tags in LibraryThing for transgender books. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(4), 309-331. https://doi-org.ledproxy2.uwindsor.ca/10.1080/19322900903341099
Mapping Review/Systematic Map
Description
Provides a description of the research field. Mapping out and categorizing existing literature to find gaps in the scholarship, and commission further reviews or primary research. As tools to commission further work they are necessarily time constrained. Broad view may oversimplify a topic. Doesn’t consider the quality of studies, only study design. Mapping reviews differ from scoping reviews in that they focus on a research question.
Research Question/Topic: Broad - research question not topic.
Literature Search: Comprehensive.
Inclusion Criteria: Well defined.
Critical Appraisal: Considers only study design not quality.
Analysis/Synthesis: Yes – provides map of existing literature to answer a question.
Replicable?: Yes.
Number of Reviewers/Authors: One.
Time Frame Required: No requirement, can take as long as needed but no minimum time required.Further Reading
Cooper, I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?". Journal of the Medical Library Association 104(1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013
Miake-Lye, I.M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R. & Shekelle, P.G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic Reviews 5 (28), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
Examples
Lorenc, T., Clayton, S., Neary, D., Whitehead, M., Petticrew, M., Thomson, H., Cummins, S., Sowden, A. & Renton, A. (2012). Crime, fear of crime, environment, and mental health and wellbeing: Mapping review of theories and causal pathways. Health & Place 18(4), 757-765. https://www-sciencedirect-com.ledproxy2.uwindsor.ca/science/article/pii/S1353829212000639
Morley, J., Machado, C. C. V., Burr, C., Cowls, J., Joshi, I., Taddeo, M. & Floridi, L. (2020). The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review. Social Science & Medicine 26(2020), n.p. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172Systematized Review
Description
Models systematic review methodology in the searching stages without the comprehensiveness, or deeper analysis. May or may not have comprehensive searching, or quality assessment. Useful for looking at one database or journal, a short time frame, or for working alone. Analysis and synthesis may be absent, or their processes not described.
Research Question/Topic: Narrow and focused.
Literature Search: Can be comprehensive or not, depending on needs. May be used just to look at one database or journal.
Inclusion Criteria: Defined.
Critical Appraisal: Potential for bias due to limitations of time, focus of searching, or because research is conducted by just one person.
Analysis/Synthesis: May be included.
Replicable?: Yes.
Number of Reviewers/Authors: One.
Time Frame Required: No requirement, can take as long as needed but no minimum time required.Further Reading
Booth, Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Martyn-St James, M., & Booth, A. (2022). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. (3rd edition). SAGE.
Sataloff, R.T., Bush, M.L., Chandra, R., Chepeha, D., Rotenberg, B., Fisher, E.W., Goldenberg, D., Hanna, E.Y., Kerschner, J.E., Kraus, D.H., Krouse, J.H., Li, D., Link, M., Lustig, L.R., Selesnick, S.H., Sindwani, R., Smith, R.J., Tysome, J., Weber, P.C., Welling, D.B. (2021). Systematic and other reviews: Criteria and complexities. The Laryngoscope 131(7), 1443-1445. https://doi-org.ledproxy2.uwindsor.ca/10.1002/lary.29619
Examples
García-Rodríguez, M. T., Juanatey-Rodríguez, I., Seijo-Bestilleiro, R. & González-Martin, C. (2023). Psycho-emotional distress in children and adolescents in relation to COVID-19 confinement and pandemic: A systematized review. Italian Journal of Pediatrics 49(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-023-01450-7
Paz, M. A., Montero-Díaz, J. & Moreno-Delgado, A. (2020). Hate speech: A systematized review. SAGE Open 10(4), n.p. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020973022
Rapid Review
Description
Applies systematic review methodology within a time-constraint. Employs “shortcuts” such as limiting search terms or restricting amount of grey literature, at the risk of introducing bias. Must clearly outline research process including identifying any and all shortcuts taken in order to ensure replicability. Useful for addressing issues needing quick decisions.
Research Question/Topic: Broad.
Literature Search: Not comprehensive; shortcuts such as limiting search terms in searching are taken to conduct research in short time frame.
Inclusion Criteria: Defined.
Critical Appraisal: Potential for bias due to limited time frame, limiting of search terms, and restrictions in type of literature.
Analysis/Synthesis: Some, though limited time frame limits thorough analysis.
Replicable?: Yes.
Number of Reviewers/Authors: Two or more.
Time Frame Required: Fewer than 12 months.Further Reading
Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid Review Guidebook. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/02/800fe34eaedbad09edf80ad5081b9291acf1c0c2.pdf
Garrity, C., Gartlehner, G., Kamel, C., King, V.J., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Stevens, A., Hamel, C., & Affengruber, L. (2020). Cochrane Rapid Reviews: Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. http://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.rapidreviews/files/uploads/cochrane_rr_-_guidance-23mar2020-v1.pdf
Garrity, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V.J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L. & Stevens, A. (2020). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence in-guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 130(2021), 13-22. https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(20)31146-X/pdf
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(224). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
Examples
Houghtaling, B., Holston, D., Szocs, C., Penn, J., Qi, D., & Hedrick, V. (2021). A rapid review of stocking and marketing practices used to sell sugar‐sweetened beverages in U.S. food stores. Obesity Reviews 22(4), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13179
Mullins, E., Evans, D., Viner, R. M., O’Brien, P. & Morris, E. (2020). Coronavirus in pregnancy and delivery: Rapid review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 55(5), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22014Scoping Review
Description
Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing research on a broad topic. Seeks to identify research gaps and opportunities for further research such as a systematic review. May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not synthesize results in the manner or a systematic review, or conduct a quality assessment. May take longer than a systematic review. Scoping reviews differ from mapping reviews in that they focus on a broad topic.
Research Question/Topic: Broad.
Literature Search: Comprehensive. Intends to find out the state of a current topic in scholarship.
Inclusion Criteria: Defined.
Critical Appraisal: Not required.
Analysis/Synthesis: Some analysis to determine state of field but does not synthesize information.
Replicable?: Yes.
Number of Reviewers/Authors: Two or more.
Time Frame Required: 12 – 18 months.Further Reading
Colquhoun H.L., Levac, D., O’Brien, K.K., Straus, S., Tricco, A.C., Perrier, L., Kastner, M. & Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67(12), 1291-1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H. & O'Brien, K.K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci (5)69, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Peters, M.D., Godfrey, C.M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D. & Soares, C.B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 13(3), 141-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
Pham, M.T., Rajic, 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. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ledproxy2.uwindsor.ca/doi/full/10.1002/jrsm.1123
PRISMA. (2018). PRISMA for Scoping Reviews. http://prisma-statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviewsExamples
González‐García, A., Pinto‐Carral, A., Pérez‐González, S. & Marqués‐Sánchez, P. (2021). Nurse managers’ competencies: A scoping review. Journal of Nursing Management 29(6), 1410–1419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13380
Wolfers, L. N. & Schneider, F. M. (2021). Using media for coping: A scoping review. Communication Research 48(8), 1210–1234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220939778Umbrella Review
Description
Reviews other systematic reviews. Often defines a broader question than a systematic review. Most useful when there are competing interventions to compare. Requires the presence of multiple systematic reviews in the field of interest. Can also be called overview of reviews or a review of systematic reviews.
Research Question/Topic: Broad or narrow.
Literature Search: Comprehensive, searches multiple systematic reviews.
Inclusion Criteria: Defined.
Critical Appraisal: Not required.
Analysis/Synthesis: Yes, determines current state of scholarship on a topic and identifies gaps in research.
Replicable?: Yes.
Number of Reviewers/Authors: Two or more.
Time Frame Required: 12 – 18 months.Further Reading
Fusar-Poli, P., & Radua, J. (2018). Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evidence-Based Mental Health. 21(3), 95-100.https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/ebmental/21/3/95.full.pdf
McKenzie, J.E. & Brennan, S.E. (2017). Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge. Systematic Reviews 6(185). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0582-8
Pollock, M., Fernandes, R.M., Becker, L.A., Pieper, D. & Hartling, L. Chapter V: Overviews of reviews. (2022). In Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J. & Welch, V.A. (Eds,), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.3) (n.p.). Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-v
Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C.M. & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodology 11(15), n.p. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15
Examples
Grgic, J., Grgic, I., Pickering, C., Schoenfeld, B. J., Bishop, D. J. & Pedisic, Z. (2020). Wake up and smell the coffee: Caffeine supplementation and exercise performance—an umbrella review of 21 published meta-analyses. British Journal of Sports Medicine 54(11), 681-688. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100278
Wohlfart, O., & Wagner, I. (2022). Teachers’ role in digitalizing education: An umbrella review. Educational Technology Research and Development 71(2), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10166-0Systematic Review
Description
A methodological and comprehensive literature synthesis focused on a well-formulated research question. Aims to identify and synthesize all of the scholarly research on a particular topic, both published and unpublished studies. Conducted in an unbiased reproducible way to provide evidence for practice, policy making and to identify gaps in research. Must make explicit methods and criteria to ensure reproducibility and requires at least a year and multiple researchers. May involve a meta-analysis. Requires
Research Question/Topic: Narrow and well-defined research question. Must be more specific than a topic or area of research.
Literature Search: Comprehensive as it attempts to find ALL existing literature on a subject.
Inclusion Criteria: Defined.
Critical Appraisal: Systematically evaluates studies and risk of bias for each included study.
Analysis/Synthesis: Yes.
Replicable?: Yes.
Number of Reviewers/Authors: Two or more.
Time Frame Required: 12 – 18 months.Further Reading
Boland, A., Cherry, M.G. & Dickson, R. (2017). Doing a systematic review: A student's guide. SAGE.
Egger, M., Higgins, J.P., Davey Smith, G. (Eds.). (2022). Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119099369
Gough, D.A., Oliver, S., Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. SAGE.
Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J. & Welch, V.A. (Eds,). (2022). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.3) Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current
Holly, C., Salmond, S.W. & Saimbert, M. (Eds). (2022). Comprehensive systematic review for advanced practice nursing. Springer Publishing Company, LLC.
Petticrew, M. & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Pub.
PRISMA. (n.d.) Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Examples
Chaput, J.-P., Gray, C. E., Poitras, V. J., Carson, V., Gruber, R., Birken, C. S., MacLean, J. E., Aubert, S., Sampson, M. & Tremblay, M. S. (2017). Systematic review of the relationships between sleep duration and health indicators in the early years (0-4 years). BMC Public Health, 17(Suppl 5), 91-107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4850-2
Schulze, M., Nehler, H., Ottosson, M. & Thollander, P. (2016). Energy management in industry – a systematic review of previous findings and an integrative conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(5), 3692–3708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.060Meta-analysis
Description
A statistical technique for combining findings from many quantitative studies. Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate and summarize results. May be included as the final analysis in a systematic review. Only valid when studies being analyzed are sufficiently similar, most importantly the same measure or outcome has to be measured in the same time intervals.
Further Reading
Crombie, I.K. & H.T.O. Davies. (2009). What is meta-analysis? (2nd edition). Hayward Medical communications. http://www.bandolier.org.uk/painres/download/whatis/Meta-An.pdf
Deeks, J.J., Higgins, J.P.T. & Altman, D.G. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J. & Welch, V.A. (Eds,). (2022). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.3) Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10
PRISMA. (n.d.) Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. http://www.prisma-statement.org/Examples
Ijaz, S., Verbeek, J., Seidler, A., Lindbohm, M.-L., Ojajärvi, A., Orsini, N., Costa, G. & Neuvonen, K. (2013). Night-shift work and breast cancer - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 39(5), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3371
Papadatou-Pastou, M., Ntolka, E., Schmitz, J., Martin, M., Munafò, M. R., Ocklenburg, S., & Paracchini, S. (2020). Human handedness: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 146(6), 481-524. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000229
Further Reading & General Information on Types of Reviews
Grant, M. & 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848
Aromataris, E., Munn, Z. (Eds). (2020). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
Knowledge Translation Program. (n.d.). Right Review. https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104(2019), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
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
References
Gerstein Science Information Centre. (2023). Knowledge syntheses: Systematic & scoping reviews, and other review types. University of Toronto Libraries. https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/systematicreviewsGrant, 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
Jönköping University. (n.d.) Literature Review Methods. https://guides.library.ju.se/c.php?g=690269&p=4943634
Louisiana State University Libraries. (2023, March 21). Systematic reviews: What type of review is right for you? https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/c.php?g=872965&p=7860555
University of Maryland Health Sciences and Human Services Library. (2023, February 1). Systematic Review Service: What type of review is right for you? https://guides.hshsl.umaryland.edu/c.php?g=94045&p=4142413
Research guide created by Scott Cowan and Annie Kavanagh.
Connect with your library