The physical space of the MSK Library is scheduled to close to visitors on Friday, May 17, 2024. Please visit this guide for more information.
The physical space of the MSK Library is scheduled to close to visitors on Friday, May 17, 2024. Please visit this guide for more information.
There are many different types of reviews. Here are some of the most common ones the MSK Library assists with:
Narrative reviews, or literature reviews, offer flexibility in regards to "how the research or clinical question is formulated (or the scope of the review established), how literature is evaluated and how the findings are organised and presented." (Source)
Scoping reviews "are an ideal tool to determine the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature and studies available as well as an overview (broad or detailed) of its focus." They require most of the same steps as systematic reviews. (Source)
Systematic reviews "[attempt] to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. [They use] explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made" (Source)
Meta-analyses follow "a research process used to systematically synthesise or merge the findings of single, independent studies, using statistical methods to calculate an overall or 'absolute' effect." They adhere to systematic review methods, with an additional statistical analysis. (Source)
Different review types have different requirements, scopes, and standards:
| Narrative/Literature Reviews | Scoping Reviews | Systematic Reviews | Meta-Analyses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review team with multiple members | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Registered and/or published protocol | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Focused, narrow research question | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Transparent, comprehensive search strategy | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Clear criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Well-documented screening process with at least two reviewers | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Quality assessment of the included studies by at least two reviewers | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Formal data collection from the included studies by at least two reviewers | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Explicit reporting standards (e.g., PRISMA, MOOSE, etc.) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Detailed descriptions of the included evidence | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Statistical analysis of the included studies | No | No | No | Yes |
Request to Work with a Librarian
Systematic Review FAQs
Ask Us a Question