A brief description of the various literature review types, including critical, systematic, mapping, scoping, and umbrella reviews, with open access examples.
- Literature review
- Critical review
- Systematic review
- Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis
- Mapping review/systematic map
- Scoping review
- Meta-analysis
- Umbrella review
- Desk review
You may also be interested in How to do a systematic literature review and a technoethical assessment of a technology.
Literature review
Description: A generic term referring to published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover a wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings.
Search: May or may not include comprehensive searching.
Appraisal: May or may not include quality assessment.
Synthesis: Typically narrative.
Analysis: Chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. (Grant & Booth, 2009, pp. 94-95, slightly edited)
Critical review
Description: Aims to demonstrate that the writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include a degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in a hypothesis or model.
Search: Seeks to identify most significant items in the field.
Appraisal: No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution.
Synthesis: Typically narrative, perhaps conceptual or chronological.
Analysis: Constitutes a significant component of the work and seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory. (Grant & Booth, 2009, pp. 94-95, slightly edited)
Examples of a critical review:
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC medical research methodology, 9(1), 1-11.
Systematic review
Description: Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review.
Search: Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching.
Appraisal: Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion.
Synthesis: Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment.
Analysis: What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research. (Grant & Booth, 2009, pp. 94-95, slightly edited)
A systematic review is a form of secondary study that uses a well-defined methodology to identify, analyze (evaluate) and interpret all available research relevant to a particular research question or topic (Kitchenham, 2007).
Examples of a systematic review:
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6.
Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis
Description: Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies.
Search: May employ selective or purposive sampling.
Appraisal: Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion.
Synthesis: Qualitative, narrative synthesis.
Analysis: Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models. (Grant & Booth, 2009, pp. 94-95, slightly edited)
Examples of a qualitative systematic review:
Campbell, F. A., Tramèr, M. R., Carroll, D., Reynolds, D. J. M., Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J. (2001). Are cannabinoids an effective and safe treatment option in the management of pain? A qualitative systematic review. Bmj, 323(7303), 13.
Mapping review/systematic map
Description: Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature.
Search: Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints.
Appraisal: No formal quality assessment.
Synthesis: May be graphical and tabular.
Analysis: Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research. (Grant & Booth, 2009, pp. 94-95, slightly edited)
Mapping reviews are focused on a visual synthesis of the data and are question based rather than topic based like the scoping review. Mapping reviews are best designed for: 1) When there is an abundance and a diversity of research; 2) as a first step to a systematic review; and 3) to identify gaps in a topic area. (Temple University Libraries, Systematic Reviews & Other Review Types)
Examples of a mapping review:
Tybor, D. J., Beauchesne, A. R., Niu, R., Shams-White, M. M., & Chung, M. (2018). An evidence map of research linking dietary sugars to potentially related health outcomes. Current developments in nutrition, 2(11), nzy059.
Scoping review
Description: Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research).
Search: Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress.
Appraisal: No formal quality assessment.
Synthesis: Typically tabular with some narrative commentary.
Analysis: Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review. (Grant & Booth, 2009, pp. 94-95, slightly edited)
Examples of a scoping review:
Lu, C., Macdonald, R., Odell, B., Kokhan, V., Demmans Epp, C., & Cutumisu, M. (2022). A scoping review of computational thinking assessments in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1-46.
Meta-analysis
Description: A technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results.
Search: Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness.
Appraisal: Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses.
Synthesis: Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary.
Analysis: Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity. (Grant & Booth, 2009, pp. 94-95, slightly edited)
Examples of a meta-analysis review:
Herbert, T. B., & Cohen, S. (1993). Stress and immunity in humans: a meta-analysis review. PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE-WASHINGTON-, 55, 364-364.
Umbrella review
Description: Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on a broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results.
Search: Identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies.
Appraisal: Quality assessment of studies within component reviews and/or of reviews themselves.
Synthesis: Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary.
Analysis: What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; recommendations for future research. (Grant & Booth, 2009, pp. 94-95, slightly edited)
Examples of an umbrella review:
Radua, J., Ramella‐Cravaro, V., Ioannidis, J. P., Reichenberg, A., Phiphopthatsanee, N., Amir, T., … & Fusar‐Poli, P. (2018). What causes psychosis? An umbrella review of risk and protective factors. World psychiatry, 17(1), 49-66.
Desk review
A desk review consults all kinds of newspapers and news sites to illustrate certain issues based on compelling reports in the news.
Examples of a desk review:
Dovlo, D. (2004). Using mid-level cadres as substitutes for internationally mobile health professionals in Africa. A desk review. Human resources for health, 2(1), 1-12.
Related content
Ethical AI frameworks, initiatives, and resources
How to do a systematic literature review and a technoethical assessment of a technology
The ultimate academic manuscript submission checklist
Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews
