Review Types

Compare seven literature review types — narrative, systematic, scoping, meta-analysis, rapid, integrative, and umbrella — and choose the right methodology for your project.

Different research questions call for different review methodologies. A narrative review frames a dissertation chapter; a systematic review answers a focused clinical question with reproducible rigor; a scoping review maps an emerging field; a meta-analysis pools quantitative effects; a rapid review feeds a policy deadline; an integrative review blends methods; an umbrella review synthesizes the systematic reviews that already exist. Use the cards below to compare scope, reporting standards, and the situations each type is designed for, then follow the in-depth guide for the methodology you need.

Narrative Review

Thematic overview of a topic area

When: Thesis chapter 2, background sections, and broad topic overviews where comprehensive quantitative synthesis is not required.

Read the Narrative Review guide →

Systematic Review

Rigorous, reproducible evidence synthesis

When: Answering a focused clinical or policy question with a comprehensive, reproducible search and formal quality appraisal.

Read the Systematic Review guide →

Scoping Review

Map the breadth of evidence on a topic

When: Mapping the literature, clarifying concepts, or identifying research gaps before a full systematic review.

Read the Scoping Review guide →

Meta-Analysis

Quantitative synthesis of effect sizes

When: Pooling quantitative results across comparable studies to estimate an overall effect.

Read the Meta-Analysis guide →

Rapid Review

Accelerated evidence synthesis for decisions

When: Time-sensitive policy or practice decisions where a full systematic review is not feasible.

Read the Rapid Review guide →

Integrative Review

Combine empirical and theoretical literature

When: Integrating diverse methodologies (quantitative, qualitative, theoretical) to develop a holistic understanding.

Read the Integrative Review guide →