Systematic & Advanced Evidence Synthesis Reviews

For the 8 major types of reviews this website has details and links to peer-reviewed journal manuscripts on (a) the epistemological and ontological underpinning of the synthesis approach and (b) how-to guidelines for conducting and adjudicating the rigor of each review type. We also created (c) an executive summary infographic for each review type.

A recent editorial on different types of reviews in biomedical research.

This article describes 14 different types of reviews that are common in health research - it gives strengths and weaknesses of each type with examples form health and health information domains. Very helpful when deciding what type of review your research topic may fit into.

All too often the quality and rigor of topic investigations is inaccurately conveyed to information professionals, resulting in a mischaracterization of the research, which, if left unchecked and published, may in turn mislead potential readers. Accurately understanding and categorizing the types of topic investigation searches that are requested of information professionals is critical to both meeting requestors’ needs and reflecting their intended methodological approaches. Information professionals’ expertise can be an invaluable resource to guide users through the investigative and publication process.

The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the ‘traditional’ systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance.

This is a key seminal paper on the foundational methodologies of scoping reviews.

Evidence synthesis encompasses a broad range of review types, and scoping reviews are an increasingly popular approach to synthesizing evidence in a number of fields. They sit alongside other evidence synthesis methodologies, such as systematic reviews, qualitative evidence synthesis, realist synthesis, and many more. Until now, scoping reviews have been variously defined in the literature. In this article, we provide the following formal definition for scoping reviews: Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, often irrespective of source (ie, primary research, reviews, non-empirical evidence) within or across particular contexts. Scoping reviews can clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature and identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept, including those related to methodological research.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp Ö, Straus SE. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018.

The aim of the STARR Decision Tool is to outline high-level approaches to the rapid review process, rather than defining detailed review methods.

The methods of conducting rapid reviews varies widely, and are typically done in less than 5 weeks. Often policy makers require a short deadline and a systematic review for synthesizing the evidence is not practical. A rapid review speeds up the systematic review process by omitting stages of the systematic review making it less rigorous.

The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.

Narrative meta-analyses are a new form of narrative review that combines the traditional literature review with some more robust reporting standards for article inclusion and analysis.

This article provides a brief introduction to critical steps needed for conducting a high-quality State-of-the-Art (SotA) literature review.

Sometimes the literature review you need isn't one that answers a narrow question: for that we would use a systematic review to determine, for example, the best workplace-based assessment tool for a pediatric residency program. Sometimes educators are not interested in how individual theories addressing a phenomenon align and differ, an answer you would find via an integrative review. Instead, educators may need to know how the modern conceptualization of a specific phenomenon became the norm—including the history that informed current understanding, what that understanding is, and what might develop in the future. For example, to understand resident assessment, you might want to know its history, what the current orientation is, and what future expansions might occur. To answer such questions, educators and researchers turn to State-of-the-Art (SotA) literature reviews.