Specifies the number of studies evaluated orselected
Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]
Steps of a systematic review
Formulation of researchable questions | Select answerable questions |
Disclosure of studies | Databases, and key words |
Evaluation of its quality | Quality criteria during selection of studies |
Synthesis | Methods interpretation, and synthesis of outcomes |
It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).
In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.
Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.
While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.
One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.
As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.
A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]
Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question
I | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies |
II | Randomized controlled study | Crross-sectional study in consecutive patients | Initial cohort study | Prospective cohort study |
III | One of the following: Non-randomized experimental study (ie. controlled pre-, and post-test intervention study) Comparative studies with concurrent control groups (observational study) (ie. cohort study, case-control study) | One of the following: Cross-sectional study in non-consecutive case series; diagnostic case-control study | One of the following: Untreated control group patients in a randomized controlled study, integrated cohort study | One of the following: Retrospective cohort study, case-control study (Note: these are most prevalently used types of etiological studies; for other alternatives, and interventional studies see Level III |
IV | Case series | Case series | Case series or cohort studies with patients at different stages of their disease states |
Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.
In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.
Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:
What is the right type of literature review my study demands?
If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.
Heading from scratch!
A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.
Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:
Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.
However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.
A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.
Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.
Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408
The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.
Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.
Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?
*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)
Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.
Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.
This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?
Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.
A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:
Paper title: Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review
Source: SciSpace
You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.
While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.
A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.
It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.
Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320
Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review
Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.
Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.
Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.
Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.
Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .
Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.
Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.
Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.
By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.
A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:
*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.
Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.
Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!
A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.
The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.
Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —
While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:
Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.
Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.
Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.
Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches. However, it varies depending on the research question.
Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .
A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:
In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.
Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review
Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.
Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.
Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers
A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.
An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:
Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature
Literature Review Type | Narrative | Systematic | Integrative | Rapid | Scoping |
Approach | The traditional approach lacks a structured methodology | Systematic search, including structured methodology | Combines diverse methodologies for a comprehensive understanding | Quick review within time constraints | Preliminary study of existing literature |
How Exhaustive is the process? | May or may not be comprehensive | Exhaustive and comprehensive search | A comprehensive search for integration | Time-limited search | Determined by time or scope constraints |
Data Synthesis | Narrative | Narrative with tabular accompaniment | Integration of various sources or methodologies | Narrative and tabular | Narrative and tabular |
Purpose | Provides description of meta analysis and conceptualization of the review | Comprehensive evidence synthesis | Holistic understanding | Quick policy or practice guidelines review | Preliminary literature review |
Key characteristics | Storytelling, chronological presentation | Rigorous, traditional and systematic techniques approach | Diverse source or method integration | Time-constrained, systematic approach | Identifies literature size and scope |
Example Use Case | Historical exploration | Effectiveness evaluation | Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed combination | Policy summary | Research literature overview |
Online scientific databases.
Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.
Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.
Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.
Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.
If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!
There you go!
Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.
A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.
A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.
A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.
A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Learn how to write a review article.
What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.
Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.
To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.
To explain the current state of knowledge.
To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.
To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.
There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.
Make sure you check the aims and scope of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.
Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.
Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.
Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field.
As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.”
When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.”
For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences, read advice from NCBI .
Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative.
For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title and our researcher’s guide to search engine optimization .
Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact.
Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.
Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.
Angus Crake, researcher
As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.
Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission.
You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.
Find out more about how Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.
Differences in... | ||
---|---|---|
Presents the viewpoint of the author | Critiques the viewpoint of other authors on a particular topic | |
New content | Assessing already published content | |
Depends on the word limit provided by the journal you submit to | Tends to be shorter than a research article, but will still need to adhere to words limit |
Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:
Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?
Have you defined the scope of your article?
Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?
Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?
Did you start with an overview of the topic?
Have you presented a critical discussion?
Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?
Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?
Taylor & Francis Editing Services offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.
How to edit your paper
Writing a scientific literature review
In this guide.
Don't need to be a subject expert, but should have a pretty good concept of the topic once completed
Lane Medical Librarians are still able to help! We can also help with book chapters, theses, background literature reviews, etc. Submit a request through our Literature Search Service to get started.
A complete list of references for this infographic series is available.
Descriptions of Types of Reviews
Reproduced from: Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J . 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148.
Review Type | Description |
---|---|
Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model. | |
Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings. | |
Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature. | |
Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. | |
Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies. | |
Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics. | |
Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for 'themes' or 'constructs' that lie in or across individual qualitative studies. | |
Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research. | |
Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research). | |
Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research. | |
Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review. | |
Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce 'best evidence synthesis'. | |
Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment. | |
Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results. |
Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202-222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276.
Table of Contents
As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.
Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.
A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.
A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.
Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:
Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!
You may also like.
Input your search keywords and press Enter.
by Antony W
June 24, 2024
There are a lot of different types of reviews. In this article, we are going to provide you with the 10 major types of reviews.
They include umbrella, scoping, critical, literature, realistic, integrative, mapping, rapid, and quantitative systematic review. We have discussed them below.
An umbrella review is the master review. The review takes evidence from already existing reviews to provide a high-level summary.
We use the umbrella review when we have several competitive interventions. The review is of great importance because it turns evidence into practice.
Apart from just determining what is known on a topic, the review also determines what remains unknown and recommendations.
These recommendations will be used to further carry out an investigation. Information on an umbrella review is most of the time presented using tables.
People who are much involved with this type of review are librarians. You could therefore approach a librarian if you need help with the umbrella review.
A scoping review is also known as a scooping project. The review is used to categorize existing literature. The literature is grouped according to features, volume, and nature.
Most people confuse this review with the mapping review. The mapping review is more of questions while the scooping review is more based on topics.
The main reason we have scooping reviews is to identify nature through research. The review is best for realizing opportunities in existing literature, explaining functional definitions, and labeling the body of a research/literature.
A lot of time is used when preparing a scoping review. Also, instead of single structured research, you will need multiple structural pieces of research. The research is not as easy as other reviews.
A critical review will summarize and evaluate ideas and summarize reports on an article. Writers use this review to express what they already know about the subject.
Before expressing their view they need to think carefully and consider both weaknesses and strengths in what they are reviewing.
The best way to do critical reviews is by scanning the research to be informed and effectively reviewing the literature as you question the information provided in the text.
Look at the texts from various angles to be able to evaluate the theories, frameworks, and approaches in the text.
The elements of a critical review include the introduction, summary, critique (the main body), conclusion, and references.
Literature reviews are writings that academically showcase knowledge and understanding of the literature on a given topic placed in a given setting.
Unlike a literature report, a literature review will evaluate essential materials. Apart from the critic’s evaluation, a literature review should also include a brief synopsis.
Although the review forms part of a research project, it can still be treated as an independent piece of work.
The purpose of having literature reviews is to establish familiarity and get to understand research on a given field before conducting a new investigation.
A literature review is the best way to summarize and analyze a theory or investigation, identify gaps that exist in research, and identify areas of controversy.
A realistic review can also be called a realistic synthesis. Realistic reviews are used to study interventions that are so complex to perceive the limitations of conventional methodology. It also highlights mechanisms, context, and outcomes to explain the intended or unintended differences.
Realistic reviews are crucial because they are used to unpack the impact of complex interventions as they strive to answer questions such as “under what circumstance do a given thing work” and “to who does the thing in discussion work for”.
An integrative review will summarize theatrical research to give a better understanding of a given situation.
The integrative review methodology can build upon informing research, policy initiation, and nursing science.
This review accepts the inclusion of various approaches. The integrative review approach is appropriate when research is more focused on the occurrence of interest and when research supports a vast variety of inquiries.
A mapping review will classify trends/themes, categorize trends/themes and characterize patterns in evidence production.
A mapping review is supposed to make you thematically understand research on a provided topic. That way, it is possible to assess gaps that could be conveyed by future research. The review is appropriate when there are lots of foregoing literature.
A rapid review is a variation of structured review. The structured review can balance constraints even when considerations are corrupt.
Rapid reviews are conducted by a lot of institutions in the world. Rapid reviews can examine reports, articles, and books to compare reviews using Scoping reviews.
Researchers use the mixed study review to gather and analyze qualitative and quantitative information under the same topic of study.
The mixed study review features various methods of designs that include embedded, explanatory, exploratory, and parallel designs.
The review provides answers to questions quantitative and qualitative methods cannot answer.
Mixed study reviews can also enrich the researchers’ experience by illuminating issues of study.
Quantitative Systematic Review is of much use in nursing research. To reduce biases and make the review more trustworthy, reviews based on protocol should be used.
That way, reproducibility, and transparency shall be enhanced. Developing quantitative systematic reviews is not hard, the only thing that limits it is inadequate resources.
A quantitative systematic review aims to guide researchers as they develop systematic review protocols.
Apart from helping researchers develop review protocol, this review also helps them enhance trustworthiness and realize the importance of completing quantitative systematic findings.
Since this review is useful in clinical practices, it is important to base it on the planned protocol. That way trustworthiness will also be enhanced.
Everything that appears on the quantitative systematic review should be outlined in detail processes used to undertake the review.
Some of these details include inclusion, exclusion criteria, and main focus search terms. The method used for data extraction, data analysis, and critical appraisal should also be included to make sure there is transparency.
About the author
Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.
Systematic literature reviews (slrs).
SLR’s attempt to collate all empirical evidence that fit pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific clearly-formulated research question. A SLR uses explicit and reproducible systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made.
The process starts with a research question and a protocol or research plan. A review team searches for studies to answer the question using a highly sensitive search strategy. The retrieved studies are then screened for eligibility using pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria (this is done by at least two people working independently). Next, the reviewers extract the relevant data and assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, the review team synthesizes the extracted study data and presents the results.
A SLR may contain meta-analyses (statistical analysis). A SLR which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available is often known as a living SLR.
Rapid reviews aim to produce a rigorous synthesis quickly (due to time constraints/urgency), based on a pre-defined research question. The review process for rapid reviews is the same as for a more traditional systematic review: the emphasis is on a replicable pre-specified search, and screening methods that minimize the risk of bias, although potentially isn’t as stringent as a formal systematic review.
The process operates within pre-specified limits (for example, by restricting searches to articles published during a specific timeframe) and is usually run by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in systematic review methods.
An umbrella review is a review of multiple systematic reviews. The process uses explicit and systematic methods to search for, and identify, systematic reviews on related research questions in the same topic area. The purpose of an umbrella review is to synthesize the results of the systematic reviews across important outcomes.
Scoping reviews are exploratory and they typically address a broad question, compared to a systematic review that typically has a more targeted question.
Researchers conduct scoping reviews to assess the extent of the available evidence, to organize it into groups and to highlight gaps. If a scoping review finds no studies, this might help researchers to decide that a systematic review is likely to be of limited value and that resources could be better directed elsewhere.
Literature, or narrative, reviews provide an overview of what is known about a particular topic. They evaluate the material, rather than simply restating it, but the methods used to do this are not usually prespecified and they are not described in detail in the review. The search might be comprehensive but it does not aim to be exhaustive. Literature reviews are often topic based and can take the form of a discussion. Literature reviews lack precision and replicability and can present their findings in the context of what has come before. Often, this sort of synthesis does not attempt to control for the author’s own bias. The results or conclusion of a literature review is likely to be presented in a narrative format rather than statistical methods.
Take a look at the articles about the different types of review on the Covidence blog:
It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.
Original Research:
This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.
Short reports or Letters:
These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .
Review Articles:
Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.
TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.
Case Studies:
These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.
Methodologies or Methods
These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.
Back │ Next
FILE - Rich Homie Quan attends the arrivals at VH1’s Hip Hop Honors at David Geffen Hall at Lincoln Center on Monday, July 11, 2016, in New York. (Photo by Brad Barket/Invision/AP, File)
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Rich Homie Quan, the Atlanta rapper who gained mainstream fame through the trap singles “Type of Way” and “Flex (Ooh, Ooh, Ooh),” has died. He was 33.
Quan, whose legal name is Dequantes Devontay Lamar, died at an Atlanta hospital, the Fulton County Medical Examiner confirmed to The Associated Press. The medical examiner was informed of his death Thursday, said Jimmy Sadler, senior medical examiner investigator. The cause of death was not immediately available, with an autopsy scheduled for Friday.
Quan was one of the biggest names in hip-hop in the mid-2010s. He released a slew of mixtapes before he broke through in 2013 with the infectious “Type of Way.” The song became such a success that several other rappers jumped on the remix, including Jeezy and Meek Mill. He maintained his momentum, appearing on a YG track with Jeezy and releasing the London on da Track-produced song “Lifestyle” through his Rich Gang rap collective that included Young Thug and Birdman.
From AP’s archives: Rich Homie Quan spoke with AP in 2022 about his 2013-2016 run of hip-hop hitmaking that included “Type of Way,” “Flex (Ohh, Ohh, Ohh),” “Walk Thru” and “Lifestyle.” The Atlanta rapper has died at 33.
Quan followed up with “Flex (Ooh, Ooh, Ooh),” a song produced by DJ Spinz and Nitti Beatz. It became his highest charting solo single at No. 26 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. He also featured on Lil Dicky’s viral “$ave Dat Money.”
In 2018, Quan debuted his first and only studio album “Rich as in Spirit,” which mostly went without any features — except for “Think About It,” a single with Rick Ross.
Quavo, Lil Boosie and Playboi Carti are some of the music artists who paid tribute to Quan on social media.
“Rest in Peace my brother Rich Homie Quan,” said singer Jacquees, who also called him a “legend” on X. “I love you for Life.”
Quan spoke with The Associated Press in 2022 about returning to music after an abrupt hiatus. At the time, the rapper said he was going through litigation with independent label T.I.G. (Think It’s a Game Record), but was prepared to make a comeback.
During that time, Quan ended up in a feud with his old collaborator Young Thug — who along with rapper Gunna — were among a group indicted on charges of conspiracy to violate Georgia’s RICO Act and also accused of participation in a criminal street gang.
Quan said there was no beef between him Young Thug and was open to having a conversation with him if the opportunity presented itself. He said he hated to see Young Thug locked up, adding that rappers were being targeted by law enforcement.
“I wouldn’t say unfairly targeted because at the same time, some of these rappers are putting guns in videos and, you know, it’s like social media — it goes back to the social media thing,” he said.
“I think we showing too much, I think they’re showing too much, you know what I mean. Like that’s the difference in my music, I’ma tell a story but I ain’t going to tell you how I did it,” he added. “It’s still Black art, but we’re definitely being targeted. So that’s why I’m mindful of what I say in my music.”
Landrum and Dalton reported from Los Angeles. Associated Press writer Gary Gerard Hamilton contributed to this report from New York. ___
This story has been updated to correct Quan’s age to 33 based on information from the medical examiner.
COMMENTS
How to Write an Article Review: Types, Format, & Examples
How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)
Systematic Reviews - Types of Reviews - Guides
Different Types of Article Review. In academic writing, the landscape of article reviews is diverse and nuanced, encompassing a variety of formats that cater to different research purposes and methodologies. Among these, three main types of article reviews stand out due to their distinct approaches and applications: Narrative.
Basics of Writing Review Articles - PMC
Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights ...
Types of Literature Reviews: Critically Appraised Topic (CATs) : A critically appraised topic (or CAT) is a short summary of evidence on a topic of interest, usually focused around a clinical question. A CAT is like a shorter and less rigorous version of a systematic review, summarizing the best available research evidence on a topic.
Outlines other types of reviews like rapid reviews, mixed methods reviews, overview of reviews, etc. For each review, includes: definition, process, timeframe, limitations, + links to useful resources for conducting the review.
Mapping review/systematic map: Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature. Meta-analysis: Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. Mixed studies review ...
There are many types of reviews --- narrative reviews, scoping reviews, systematic reviews, integrative reviews, umbrella reviews, rapid reviews and others --- and it's not always straightforward to choose which type of review to conduct.These Review Navigator tools (see below) ask a series of questions to guide you through the various kinds of reviews and to help you determine the best choice ...
Types of Reviews - Systematic Reviews - Research Guides
How to write a review article? - PMC
Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
Rapid Review. Knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review; Streamlines or omits specific steps to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner; Umbrella Review. Review of reviews; Synthesizes evidence from other published systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on a broad topic
6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career ...
Descriptions of Types of Reviews. Reproduced from: Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148. Review Type
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and ...
Writing a good review article | Author Services Blog
In this article, we are going to provide you with the 10 major types of reviews. They include umbrella, scoping, critical, literature, realistic, integrative, mapping, rapid, and quantitative systematic review. We have discussed them below. 1. Umbrella Review. An umbrella review is the master review.
What are the different types of review?
Most article types are subject to peer review, and certain article types — such as reviews and editorials — are usually solicited by NEJM editors, though unsolicited submissions may be considered.
It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Rich Homie Quan, the Atlanta rapper who gained mainstream fame through the trap singles "Type of Way" and "Flex (Ooh, Ooh, Ooh)," has died. He was 33. Quan, whose legal name is Dequantes Devontay Lamar, died at an Atlanta hospital, the Fulton County Medical Examiner confirmed to The Associated Press.