Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Which Review Is Right for You?: What Type of Review is Right for You?

Workshop guide

Evidence Synthesis

Tools in Evidence Synthesis

FlowChart

What type of review is right for you? Flowchart
What type of review is right for you? Explanation

Examples of Different Review Types

Systematic Reviews need to have more than one author in order to be considered "systematic". A team can help cut down on bias, make judgment calls on allowing articles, and many journals will reject a study if it is labeled systematic review but only has one author. 

Systematized Review is what most people in graduate schools are actually looking to do.

"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. They may identify themselves parenthetically as a systematic’ review. Systematized reviews are 
typically conducted as a postgraduate student assignment, in recognition that they are not able to draw upon the resources required for a full systematic review (such as two reviewers).

Perceived strengths. Typically, the search stage possesses the most easily identified elements of systematicity and an author may conduct a comprehensive search but do little more than simply catalogue included studies. Conversely, the author might only search one or more databases and then code and analyse all retrieved results in a
systematic manner. The resulting output ‘models’ the systematic review process and allows the author to demonstrate an awareness of the entire process and technical proficiency in the component steps, However, such a review necessarily falls short of being able to claim the comprehensiveness so fundamental to the systematic review method. Such reviews may form the basis for a more extensive piece of work either as a dissertation or a fully funded research project.

Perceived weaknesses.
For such reviews quality assessment and synthesis may be less identifiable. This means that these processes are not described, that they are modelled using a small set of eligible articles or that they are missing entirely. While the attempt at systematicity is to be welcomed, such reviews do possess a greater likelihood of bias than those that adhere more strictly to guidelines on the conduct of systematic reviews (see above). Completion of the academic requirements for the review is prioritized over methodological considerations."

Grant, MJ & Booth, A 2009, 'A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies', Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 91-108.

Also known as overview or review of reviews. 

Meta-Analysis: a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance [often found within systematic reviews, but not the same]. – Definition from www.merriam-Webster.com   

All meta-analyses should be part of a systematic review, but not all systematic reviews will include a meta-analysis.

Systematic reviews are usually researched and written as a group to remove any questions, biases, or doubts about a specific item.  A systematic review really should NOT be attempted by 1 person alone, there could be too many validity/reliability questions raised by reviewers.

Provide Website Feedback
Accessibility Statement