WRI 101-10 (Webb, Fall 2023)

Traditional or narrative literature reviews are typically broad in scope. They cover as much as possible of the existing literature or research on a given topic or subject. Often, this sort of literature review is included in theses and dissertations written for degree credit at universities. They're written as an essential part of the theoretical framework for the thesis or dissertation writer's argument: here's what's known, here's what's not known, here's what my work needs to answer and will answer. Because they describe what's known and not, their focus tends to be descriptive rather than analytical.

A systemic or systematic literature review is harder to define. Depending on the discipline or the field of study, systematic literature reviews can be many different things. Essentially, systematic literature reviews are written to answer a sharply focused research question with a comprehensive list of resources. Those resources are themselves chosen based on a predetermined selection criteria or protocol. In contrast, the traditional or narrative literature review examines all available resources in a particular discipline and is created with any and all resources that the investigator deems relevant.

The quality of the resources to be included in a systematic review is an important part of the decision to include resources in the systematic review. In other words, the author may choose to include or exclude a resource depending on an assessment of the validity of the resource.

From Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

• Systematic reviews address a need for health decision makers to be able to access high quality, relevant, accessible and up-to-date information.
• Systematic reviews aim to minimize bias through the use of pre-specified research questions and methods that are documented in protocols, and by basing their findings on reliable research.
• Systematic reviews should be conducted by a team that includes domain expertise and methodological expertise, who are free of potential conflicts of interest.
• People who might make – or be affected by – decisions around the use of interventions should be involved in important decisions about the review.
• Good data management, project management and quality assurance mechanisms are essential for the completion of a successful systematic review.

Evidence Synthesis Institute -- Systematic Reviews

Cornell University Systematic Review Decision Tree - What Sort of Review is Right for You?

What is a rapid review?

A rapid review has many of the elements of a systematic review -- a sharply focused research question, a comprehensive review of materials and resources related to the research question, and so forth. However, because rapid reviews are usually produced to answer a research question quickly, within a set amount of time, some resources may not be covered. Grey literature, government reports, and white papers are examples of materials that may be left out of rapid reviews.

Systematic reviews are designed to be as comprehensive as possible -- to include ALL materials related to the research question. As such, they're usually produced in teams. A rapid review may be conducted by a single student in a single semester, assuming the research question is sufficiently focused and certain materials are left out of the review. The writer should include in the title, abstract, or introduction of the review a notice that the review is a rapid one and explain what the parameters are for the search.

Chan, G. C. K., et al. (2021). Gateway or common liability? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of adolescent e-cigarette use and future smoking initiation. Addiction, 116(4), 743-756. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15246

McKelvin, G., Thomson, G., & Downe, S. (2021). The childbirth experience: A systematic review of predictors and outcomes. Women and birth : Journal of the Australian College of Midwives, 34(5), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2020.09.021