Skip to Main Content

Literature Reviews: Systematic & Narrative: Literature reviews: Which type of review do I need?

What are literature reviews?

A literature review is essential for graduate essays, dissertations, theses, and research projects. It aims to explore existing knowledge on your topic by analysing scholarly articles and relevant sources. This process demonstrates your grasp of the subject.

By reviewing the literature, you should identify key themes, compare perspectives, and spot gaps in existing research. This sets the context for your work, emphasising its significance in the field.

Tip

Explore theses by past University of Waikato scholars available on our Research Commons. These examples showcase a variety of literature review styles, each tailored to different research purposes. The type of review you choose will depend on your specific goals and academic context.

Scroll down for more information on the different approaches to literature reviews and how to determine which one suits your needs.

What type of review is right for you?

 

Finding the right type of review you need for your research can be half the battle, there are lots of different types of literature reviews out there which can be daunting.

Cornell Library has developed a useful flow chart to help you determine which review is best for your circumstances; it also includes a brief description of each type of review. We have created an interactive version of this for you to try.

Another similar tool is linked below.

Below are some explanations of common types of literature reviews.

 

.

This activity is based on a flowchart devised by the Cornell University Library. That flowchart is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review typically forms part of a broader research project. They provide a descriptive summary of existing research on a specific topic. It offers a broad overview by highlighting key themes, theories and trends, typically organised thematically or chronologically. A well-written narrative review identifies gaps in the existing literature and explains why the research that follows is necessary, highlighting how it contributes to the ongoing scholarly conversation in that area. This type of review focuses on qualitative assessment rather than quantitative analysis.

Unlike systematic reviews, narrative literature reviews do not necessarily adhere to a standardised search methodology and can vary in length, comprehensiveness, and timeframe. They generally allow flexibility in the choice of resources and search engines; you are more likely to be able to use tools like Library Search, federated databases (which search across multiple platforms, such as EBSCOhost and ProQuest), and grey literature (e.g. policy documents, reports, and other non-commercial publications).

Useful for Limitations
  •  Providing an understanding of the context, background, and development of the research area.
  • Identifying and discussing trends, patterns, researchers or gaps in the literature.
  • Demonstrating the need or niche for a proposed research project within the existing literature.
  • Suggesting new areas of research to pursue.
  • Assessing appropriate research methods/approaches.
  • Author’s perspective can introduce biases in study selection and interpretation.
  • Narrative reviews often lack the rigorous methodology of systematic reviews, affecting reliability and validity.
  • Absence of standardised criteria can lead to inconsistencies in the review’s scope and depth.
  • Subjective nature makes narrative reviews harder to replicate, impacting credibility.
  • Flexible, less systematic approach may overlook important studies or findings.

Further Reading on narrative literature reviews

Rapid Review

A Rapid Review involves a systematic search method but prioritises time constraints over the quality and depth of analysis.

Questions may be structured in a more neutral manner than a systematic review, the number of databases searched may be more limited and restrictions such as date ranges, language or geographical location, may be applied to help contain the number of results.

Useful for Limitations
  • Synthesising evidence within a short time frame.
  • Policy making and guideline recommendations.
  • Narrow search parameters and limited database selection.
  • Risk of bias with only one or two people screening/verifying included studies.
  • Quality appraisal may be skipped.
  • Not always as transparent and replicable as full systematic reviews.

Further Reading on Rapid Reviews

Scoping Review

Scoping reviews follow a similar rigorous and transparent approach as systematic reviews, but their purpose is to identify the breadth and extent of the body of knowledge available on a topic, rather than conducting an in-depth analysis of the research literature.

Useful for Limitations
  • Providing an overview of the breadth of existing body of knowledge, including highlighting gaps in this particular field of research.
  • Exploratory research questions or just getting an idea as to whether a specific topic could be worthy of further research.
  • Exploring beyond specific/empirical studies e.g. grey literature.
  • Investigating applicable research methods and conduct.
  • Identifying and mapping available evidence.
  • Scoping reviews prioritise breadth of knowledge over quality assessment, which can limit their applicability for policy-making or practical implementation.
  • Developing a comprehensive search strategy can be challenging for new and emerging or lesser-known areas, as keywords may be novel, subject to change, and not yet included in controlled vocabularies.
  • Can be more time and resource intensive than expected.

Further Reading on Scoping Reviews

Integrative Literature Review

An integrative literature review (IR or Systematic Integrative Review) summarises a diverse range of sources, including quantitative, qualitative, and theoretical literature, to provide a holistic understanding of a research problem. While it generally follows standardised systems similar to a systematic review, it is not limited by the types of studies included, allowing for a more flexible approach but in doing so can reduce its replicability.

 

Useful for Limitations
  • Informing policy and practice.
  • Generating new insights by blending a range of perspectives.
  • Clarifying, summarising or critiquing key concepts, theories, frameworks or research methods.
  • Identifying emerging trends or research gaps.
  • Summarising existing knowledge for students, practitioners, and researchers.
  • Can be complex, complicated and time and resource intensive due to the need to synthesise diverse study designs and methodologies.
  • Not as replicable as a systematic review which can reduce reliability.
  • Tend to contribute to the advancement of theory rather than an evidence-based clinical decisions or best practice guidelines.

Further Reading on Integrative Reviews

Systematic Review

Systematic reviews have a history rooted in evidence-based medicine (EBM) and health research. Initially developed to inform best practices for health interventions, they have now evolved to play a crucial role across various research domains. Beyond their initial purpose, systematic reviews are increasingly utilised to inform policy decisions as well (EPPI Centre, n.d). 

 

Useful for Limitations
  • A reliable, unbiased assessment of the existing body of knowledge on a particular research topic.
  • Informing policy, medical research, clinical practice and decision-making, and best practice guidelines. 
  • Based on published data (retrospective)
  • Complicated, complex and time and resource intensive.
  • Ineffective when urgent evidence is required (they can take to 2 years).

 

References and further reading on systematic reviews

EPPI Centre. (n.d). History of systematic reviews. https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Resources/EvidenceInformedPolicyandPractice/HistoryofSystematicReviews/tabid/68/Default.aspx

Further Reading on Systematic Reviews

Meta-Analysis

Meta-analysis is the statistical analysis of the studies within a systematic review, providing a summary of "the effectiveness of an experimental intervention compared with a comparator intervention" (Deeks et al., 2023, Section 10.2).

 

Useful for Limitations
  • Improving precision 
  • Determining whether effects of an intervention are consistent across populations and interventions.
  • Resolving disputes caused by conflicting studies and/or to create new hypotheses.

(Deeks et al., 2023)
  • Complicated, complex and time and resource intensive.
  • Ineffective when urgent evidence is required (they can take up to 2 years).
  • Requires advanced statistical techniques and skills.

References and further reading on Meta-Analysis

Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., & Altman, D. G. (2023). Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In J. P. T., Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 6.4). Cochrane. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

Umbrella Review

An umbrella review is basically a systematic review of systematic reviews.  They provide a very high level of evidence by synthesising the most relevant information on a topic.

Useful for Limitations
  • Distilling the evidence when there are controversies, biases, or a wide range of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on a related topic.
  • Need an appropriate number of relevant, quality reviews to conduct it on.

Further reading for umbrella reviews

Further Reading for Literature Reviews