Narrative Review | Systematic Review | |
Purpose |
|
|
Review Question | More general and broader | Begins with a focused, answerable clinical question (PICO framework) |
Authorship | Can be one or more authors | Needs a team with some SR methodology expertise – at least 3 people |
Searching for Studies | Searches may be ad hoc and based on what the author is already familiar with. Searches are not exhaustive or fully comprehensive. | Uses comprehensive and exhaustive literature searches in multiple sources. |
Study Selection | Often lack clear reasons for why studies were included or excluded from the review. | Establishes pre-specified, explicit, and reproducible eligibility criteria. |
Assessing the Quality of Included Studies | Often do not consider study quality or potential biases in study design. | Employs comprehensive analysis of quality and validity of findings |
Synthesis of Existing Research | Conclusions are more qualitative and may not be based on study quality. | Bases conclusion on quality of the studies and provide recommendations for practice or to address knowledge gaps. |
Timeline | Can be completed in a few weeks to months. | Typically takes up to 1 year or more to complete. |
*For more information how to conduct a narrative literature review see: https://medlib.belmont.edu/LitReviews
One of the nice things about systematic reviews is that there are well-established standards and guidelines for this research methodology.
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Reporting Guidelines
While systematic reviews are generally considered to be at the top of the “pyramid of evidence,” not all systematic reviews are created equal. Like any other research, they should be discussed, critiqued, and updated. Here are some tools for appraising systematic reviews:
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Systematic Review Checklists (CASP)
Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS)