Definition:
"A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review" (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265).
Description:
Literature reviews are designed to provide a broad overview or increase self-knowledge of an area of specialisation. They may also provide background to a research thesis.
Literature reviews function well as a topic overview for readers by succinctly outlining the area of research development.
Characteristics:
Team:
Can be an individual
Time:
Less than 12 months
Definition:
"Systematized reviews attempt to include one or more elements of the systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102). When a systematic review approach is adapted to produce a more manageable scope, while still retaining the rigor of a systematic review such as risk of bias assessment and the use of a protocol, this is often referred to as a structured review (Huelin et al., 2015).
Description:
Systematized reviews include elements of Systematic Reviews. They may or may not include comprehensive searches or formal critical appraisal and can be conducted by an individual.
Characteristics:
Team:
Can be an individual
Time:
Less than 12 months
Definition:
A systematic review "seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and [synthesize] research evidence, often adhering to the guidelines on the conduct of a review" provided by discipline-specific organizations, such as the Cochrane Collaboration (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102).
Description:
The goal of a systematic review is to provide an evidence synthesis of ALL research performed on one particular topic. So, your research question should be clearly answerable from the data you gather from the studies included in your review.
Ask yourself if your question even warrants a systematic review (has it been answered before?). If your question is more broad in scope or you aren't sure if it's been answered, you might look into performing a systematic map or scoping review instead.
Characteristics:
Team:
3 or more people
Time:
12-18 months
Definition:
"An assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue...using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 100).
Description:
Rapid reviews use systematic review methods to rapidly synthesise known evidence about a policy or practice issue.
They are an alternative to a systematic review, with a simplified and accelerated approach. Some aspects of a systematic review are omitted to provide a quick overview of a research area in a shorter timeframe. This may include reducing the number of databases, assigning a single reviewer, excluding or limiting the use of grey literature, and narrowing the scope of the review.
Characteristics:
Team:
3 or more people
Time:
Less than 12 months
Definition:
"A type of review that has as its primary objective the identification of the size and quality of research in a topic area in order to inform subsequent review" (Booth et al., 2012, p. 269).
Description:
Scoping reviews generally provide an overview of a broad topic area. They begin with a primary question on which inquiry is focused. The scoping review allows for a more general (broad) question and exploration of the related literature, rather than focusing on providing answers to a more limited/focused question.
Characteristics:
Team:
3 or more people
Time:
12-18 months
Definition:
Developed and refined by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), this review "map[s] out and categorize[s] existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 97).
Description:
Mapping reviews provide a '"transparent, rigorous, and systematic approach to identifying, describing, and cataloging evidence and evidence gaps in a broader topic area" (Campbell et al., 2023). These types of reviews usually focus on extracting descriptive information to answer a specific question, such as what is known about a topic or what is the scope of existing research available on that topic (Campbell et al., 2023).
Characteristics:
Team:
3 or more people
Time:
12-18 months
Definition:
A review that "[compiles] evidence from multiple...reviews into one accessible and usable document" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 103). While originally intended to be a compilation of Cochrane reviews, it now generally refers to any kind of evidence synthesis.
Description:
An umbrella review is a review of reviews. It gathers all the evidence from existing reviews on a topic to give a high-level overview. An Umbrella Review is reliant on the existence of pre-existing reviews. It cannot be completed if there are limitations in quality and comprehensiveness of available information in the reviews.
Characteristics:
Team:
3 or more people
Time:
12 - 18 months
Definition:
A meta-analysis is a "technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the result" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 98).
Description:
When there is sufficient similarity, the data from the primary research papers can be synthesised in a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to combine the results from the selected papers.
Characteristics:
Team:
3 or more people
Time:
12-18 months
Use this decision tree developed by Cornell University to help you determine which review you are doing, or should do.
Work through the tree answering yes or no to the questions to identify the type of review best suited to your needs.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Australia License.
QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.
