| Traditional review family |
| Critical review |
‘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’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
|
Integrative Review
Also known as:
Integrative Synthesis
|
Umbrella term for synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data. Can be used to guide the summary and analysis of literature in order to draw conclusions that provide a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon than existed prior to the review (Tricco et al., 2016b). More specifically, ‘The integrative review method is an approach (primarily within nursing research) that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non‐experimental research).’ (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005)
|
| Narrative review |
Used to describe a ‘conventional’ review of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2016b)
|
| Narrative summary |
An overview of the available evidence addressing a research question or set of research questions related to a single topic, often produced within a short timeframe (Khangura et al., 2012)
|
| State of the art review |
‘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’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
| Systematic review family |
| Cochrane review of effects |
‘Cochrane Reviews are systematic summaries of evidence of the effects of healthcare interventions. They are intended to help people make practical decisions. For a review to be called a ‘Cochrane Review’ it must be in CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) or CMR (Cochrane Methodology Register). The specific methods used in a Review are described in the text of the review. Cochrane Reviews are prepared using Review Manager (RevMan) software provided by the Collaboration, and adhere to a structured format that is described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.’ (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2019)
|
| Comparative effectiveness review |
Depicts how the relative benefits and harms of a range of options compare, rather than to answer a narrow question of whether a single therapy is safe and effective (Slutsky, Atkins, Chang & Sharp, 2010).
|
|
Diagnostic Systematic Review
Also known as:
Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review
|
‘Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy summarize the evidence about test accuracy. Ideally, they also investigate why the results may vary among studies, compare the performance of alternative tests, and help the reader to put the evidence in a clinical context’ (Leeflang, Deeks, Takwoingi & Macaskill, 2013)
|
| Meta‐analysis |
‘Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
| Network meta‐analysis |
‘A network meta‐analysis starts with a network of evidence: the relevant treatments and the clinical trials that have compared those treatments directly. Its structure is often readily apparent from a diagram in which each node represents a treatment (or perhaps a class of treatments), and each link or edge connects treatments that have been directly compared in one or more RCTs.’ (Hoaglin et al., 2011)
|
| Prognostic review |
‘To determine the overall prognosis for a condition, the link between specific prognostic factors and an outcome and/or prognostic/prediction models and prognostic tests.’ (Munn et al., 2018)
|
| Psychometric review |
‘To evaluate the psychometric properties of a certain test, normally to determine how the reliability and validity of a particular test or assessment.’ (Munn et al., 2018)
|
| Review of economic evaluations |
‘An economic evaluation identifies, measures, values and compares the costs and outcomes of a technology with its relevant comparator.’ (Kaunelis & Glanville, 2017)
|
| Systematic review |
‘Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
|
Systematic review of Epidemiology Studies
Also known as:
Prevalence and/or Incidence Review Etiology and/or Risk Review
|
A systematic review to determine the prevalence and/or incidence of a certain condition (Munn et al., 2018)
|
| Review of review family |
|
Review of Reviews
Also known as:
Overview
|
(Generic): ‘summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics’ (Grant & Booth, 2009) (Specific): May also be used to refer to a Cochrane Overview of Reviews, which ‘are intended primarily to summarize multiple Cochrane Intervention reviews addressing the effects of two or more potential interventions for a single condition or health problem. In the absence of a relevant Cochrane Intervention review, Cochrane Overviews may additionally include systematic reviews published elsewhere.’ (Higgins & Green, 2011)
|
| Umbrella review |
‘Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document.’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
| Rapid review family |
| Rapid Review (general guidance for all types. Specific types below) Also known as: Rapid Evidence Synthesis
|
‘a type of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a short period of time’ (Tricco et al., 2015)
|
| Rapid evidence assessment |
‘a process that is faster and less rigorous than a full systematic review but more rigorous than ad hoc searching, it uses a combination of key informant interviews and targeted literature searches to produce a report in a few days or weeks’ (betterevaluation.org, cited in Booth, 2016)
|
| Rapid Realist Synthesis Also known as: Rapid Realist Review
|
‘Applies a realist approach to knowledge synthesis (“What works for whom under what circumstances?”) to produce a product that is useful to policy makers in responding to time‐sensitive and/or emerging issues within limited time and resources.’ (Booth, 2016, edited)
|
| Qualitative Review family (Also known as: Experiential Reviews) |
| Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) |
Qualitative evidence synthesis is the broad term, popularised within the Cochrane Collaboration, for the group of methods used to undertake systematic reviews of qualitative research evidence
Also known as: Qualitative Systematic Review:
‘Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for “themes” or “constructs” that lie in or across individual qualitative studies’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
See also:
Qualitative Interpretive Meta‐synthesis (see below)
Qualitative Meta‐synthesis (see below)
Qualitative Research Synthesis (see below)
Qualitative Meta‐Summary
|
| Qualitative Interpretive Meta‐synthesis |
Specifically within social work, a synthesis of qualitative studies that results in generation of a more in‐depth understanding of the phenomena studied that can be then used to develop theory and inform practice and policy. Methodology is designed to enable a synergistic understanding of phenomena with richness in diversity of settings, participants and qualitative traditions. |
| Qualitative meta‐synthesis |
Qualitative meta‐synthesis is an intentional and coherent approach to analysing data across qualitative studies. It enables researchers to identify a specific research question and then search for, select, appraise, summarise, and combine qualitative evidence to address the research question |
| Qualitative research synthesis |
Specifically within education, qualitative research synthesis, relies upon sophisticated interpretivist methods and is one of a range of refined approaches that has developed from efforts to offer synthesis methods with increasing levels of specialisation, criticality and interpretation |
| Best fit framework synthesis |
The ‘best fit’(framework synthesis) approach applies new methods to identify theories in a systematic manner, and to create the a priori framework for the (qualitative evidence) synthesis. Otherwise it uses an innovative combination of existing methods of quality assessment, analysis and synthesis to complete the (review) process (Carroll et al., 2013)
|
| Framework synthesis |
An evidence product which ‘uses existing framework from stakeholder consultation or literature as a template for data extraction and analysis. Data not adequately explained by the existing framework is analysed inductively to create themes that populate a revised framework’ (Booth, 2016)
|
| Meta‐aggregation |
The methodology of qualitative evidence synthesis that is ‘most transparently aligned with accepted conventions for the conduct of high‐quality systematic reviews. Meta‐aggregation is grounded in pragmatism and transcendental phenomenology.’ In a meta‐aggregative review ‘the reviewer avoids re‐interpretation of included studies, but instead accurately and reliably presents the findings of the included studies as intended by the original authors.’ (Lockwood, Munn & Porritt, 2015)
|
| Meta‐Ethnography Also known as: Extended Meta‐Ethnography Meta‐Ethnography Review
|
Method for synthesising qualitative research and for developing models that interpret findings across multiple studies (Tricco et al., 2016a). Synthesises qualitative research to develop ‘translations of qualitative studies into one another’ (i.e. reciprocal translation analysis). Interpretive approach that aims to provide a new interpretation of these studies or a new theory to explain research findings encountered, rather than a simple aggregation. Re‐analyses and compares the texts of published studies (rather than the original data of each) to produce a new interpretation. Involves induction and interpretation, whereby separate parts are brought together to form a ‘whole’ so that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. Translation of studies into one another encourages the researcher to understand and transfer ideas, concepts and metaphors across different studies.
|
| Meta‐interpretation |
Approach to the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research that seeks to maintain an interpretive epistemology that is congruent with most primary qualitative research (Weed, 2005). Fundamental features of meta‐interpretation comprise:
- An ideographic (i.e. not predetermined) approach to development of exclusion criteria
- A focus on meaning in context
- Interpretations as the raw data for synthesis
- An iterative approach to the theoretical sampling of studies for synthesis
- A transparent audit trail as a guarantor of the integrity and trustworthiness of the synthesis
|
| Meta‐narrative review |
Seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. Meta‐narrative review looks historically at how particular research traditions have unfolded over time and shaped the kind of questions being asked and the methods used to answer them (Wong et al., 2013). |
| Meta‐Study Also known as: Meta‐Theory
|
‘Meta study derives questions from each of its three components to which it subjects the dataset and inductively generates a number of theoretical claims in relation to it.’ (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
|
| Meta‐Summary |
‘a new and original approach to handling a collection of qualitative studies… the frequency of each finding is determined and the higher the frequency of a particular finding, the greater its validity’ (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
|
| Thematic Synthesis Also known as: Thematic Analysis
|
‘combines and adapts approaches from both meta‐ethnography and grounded theory. The method was developed out of a need to conduct reviews that addressed questions relating to intervention need, appropriateness and acceptability – as well as those relating to effectiveness – without compromising on key principles developed in systematic reviews’ (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
|
| Mixed methods review family |
| Mixed Methods Synthesis Also known as: Mixed Methods Review
|
‘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’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
| Bayesian Meta‐Analysis Also known as: Bayesian Approach
|
Frequently cited but little used method for synthesising qualitative and quantitative findings. Begins with a prior distribution describing plausible potential values for parameters of interest. This distribution may be informed by previous data or expert beliefs, or it may allow any of a wide range of parameters to be equally true. Observed data is then described in relation to these parameter values. Finally, both parameter and likelihood data are multiplied to create a posterior distribution for each parameter with the mean, median or mode of the posterior distribution being handled as a point estimate and credible set limits being used to describe the surrounding uncertainty (Voils et al., 2009)
|
| EPPI‐Centre Review Also known as: EPPI‐Centre Outcomes plus Views Review
|
Mixed method synthesis that encompasses studies measuring effectiveness (e.g. from randomised controlled trials) and studies investigating people's views and experiences (from qualitative research) (Oliver, 2015). The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre, Institute of Education, University of London sought to combine methods for assessing the likelihood of causal relationships with those that advance understanding of different social perspectives within a third, integrative review
|
| Critical interpretive synthesis |
‘Involves an iterative approach to refining the research question and searching and selecting from the literature (using theoretical sampling) and defining and applying codes and categories. It also has a particular approach to appraising quality, using relevance – i.e. likely contribution to theory development – rather than methodological characteristics as a means of determining the ‘quality’ of individual papers’ (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
|
| Narrative Synthesis Also known as: Textual Narrative Synthesis
|
Draws out central theories or causal mechanisms identified in multiple studies and builds an explanation of the body of research by telling the story of the evolution of the field or mapping the domains covered by the literature in an area. Created using the methods of thematic analysis, conceptual mapping, and critical reflection on the synthesis process. (Tricco et al., 2016a) Textual narrative synthesis is an approach which arranges studies into more homogenous groups. (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
|
| Realist Synthesis Also known as: Realist Review
|
‘Answers the question “What works for whom under what circumstances?” rather than “What works?”. Specifically, it seeks to ‘unpack the mechanism’ of how complex programmes work (or why they fail) in particular contexts and settings’ (Booth, 2016)
|
| Rapid Realist Synthesis |
See Above Under Rapid Reviews |
| Purpose Specific Reviews |
|
Concept Synthesis
Also known as:
Concept Analysis
Conceptual Analysis
|
Synthesis method used to identify concepts, viewpoints or ideas. Focuses on identifying the defining attributes of the concepts and can be used to develop a synthesis model (Tricco et al., 2016a)
|
| Content Analysis |
Research technique for the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication (i.e. journal articles, books etcetera). Content analysis represents a tool for analysing a sample of research documents in a systematic and rule‐governed way. Broadly, content analysis can be translated into two levels of analysis: (i) analysing the manifest content of texts and documents by statistical methods and (ii) excavating latent content of the text and documents by interpreting the underlying meaning of terms and arguments (Seuring & Gold, 2012)
|
| Expert Opinion/Policy Review |
‘To review and synthesize current expert opinion, text or policy on a certain phenomena’ (Munn et al., 2018)
|
|
Technology Assessment Review (Health Technology Assessment)
See also: Systematic Review family (Systematic Review of Effectiveness; Comparative Effectiveness Review; Meta‐analysis; Network Meta‐Analysis; Review of economic evaluations)
|
Commissioned by decision making bodies (e.g. NICE in the UK), TARs assess the evidence submitted by manufacturers of the clinical efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of their products. Manufacturers’ own systematic review methods will be critiqued and the evidence review group may perform their own searches |
|
Scoping Review
Also known as:
Scoping Study
|
‘Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
|
Mapping Review
Also known as:
Evidence Map
Systematic Map
Systematic Mapping Review
|
‘Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
|
Methodological Review
Also known as:
Meta‐Method
Methodology Review
|
‘To examine and investigate current research methods and potentially their impact on research quality.’ (Munn et al., 2018)
|
| Systematic Search and Review |
‘Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
| Systematized Review |
‘Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
|
Conducting Your Literature Review by 
Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy by 
Literature Review and Synthesis by 
Writing the Literature Review by 
