Literature Review Types
Each semester, students visit my office expressing interest in conducting a systematic review. However, a full systematic review usually requires a well-trained team and can take anywhere from 1 to 2 years to complete—far more time than most students have available.
For reference, here are key resources on the Systematic Review process:
- Steps for writing a systematic review
- Cochrane Handbooks for different types of systematic reviews
- What is a systematic review?
- Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach
- Example - Stiff Landings, Core Stability, and Dynamic Knee Valgus: A Systematic Review on Documented Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures in Male and Female Athletes.
Systematic reviews are a family of reviews using rigorous methodologies, with common types including standard Systematic Reviews, which provide a comprehensive overview of a topic; Scoping Reviews, which map the breadth of a topic’s literature; Rapid Reviews, which use expedited methods for urgent questions; Meta-analyses, which combine quantitative data to produce a single effect estimate; and Umbrella Reviews, which synthesize findings from multiple systematic reviews.
Given the number of questions I receive, I thought it would be helpful to highlight some different types of literature reviews—including the “mini-systematic review.” Until recently, I wasn’t aware this was a recognized type, but it seems to be gaining traction for certain purposes.
Before beginning your research, visit PubMed and search for articles that align with the type of review you intend to conduct (e.g., systematic review, scoping review, narrative review). This will help you better understand the structure, expectations, and scope of that review type—and confirm whether it’s the right fit for your research goals.
You’ll find an overview of the mini-systematic steps at the bottom of this blog.
___________________________________________________
See additional review types in the Libguide listed below.
UIW Medical Library Literature Review types – scroll to the bottom of that page.
Review type: Critical Review - Steps
Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article
Writing a Critical Review
Example - Lateral Patellar Dislocation: A Critical Review and Update of Evidence-Based Rehabilitation Practice Guidelines and Expected Outcomes
Time – 6-18 months, 1 or more people.
Critical review: This approach involves a detailed analysis and critique of existing literature, suitable for a solo researcher with deep subject-matter expertise.
- Purpose: To evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and contradictions in the literature and offer a critical perspective.
- Methodology: Involves detailed analysis and assessment of research credibility.
- Best for: Challenging established assumptions and opening new research avenues.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Review type: Literature Review/Overview/Narrative Review - Steps
Steps in the Literature Review Process
Narrative Reviews
Example - Magnesium and Fibromyalgia: A Literature Review
Time – 1-3 months or longer
Narrative review: This is the most common type of literature review and is well-suited for a single author.
- Purpose: Summarizes existing literature to provide a broad overview, context for a research topic, and identify gaps.
- Methodology: Less structured and more flexible than other types, relying on the author's expertise and judgment to select and interpret research.
- Best for: Exploring new or complex topics, providing background for a larger paper, or gaining a general understanding of a subject.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Review type: Mapping Review/Systematic Map - Steps
Access to primary and community health-care services for people 16 years and over with intellectual disabilities: a mapping and targeted systematic review. Chp 2: The mapping review methods.
Example - Mapping current research trends on neuromuscular risk factors of non-contact ACL injury.
Time – 6-12 months or longer takes a team
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Review type: Meta-analysis - Steps
Ten simple rules for carrying out and writing meta-analyses.
A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Beginners.
Example - Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties.
Time – Several month to several years takes a team
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Review type: Rapid Review – Steps
Rapid Review Protocol
Rapid Review Guidebook
Rapid literature review: definition and methodology
Rapid Reviews
Example - A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being.
Time – approx. 6 months, 1 or more people.
Rapid review: This expedited approach prioritizes speed over exhaustive coverage and is manageable for one person under time constraints.
- Purpose: To provide timely insights for decision-making by quickly synthesizing relevant research.
- Methodology: Involves a simplified systematic process, which may mean using a narrower search or limiting the number of databases.
- Best for: Urgent policy or practice-based questions where a comprehensive, systematic review is not feasible.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Review type: Scoping review – Steps
Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review
Scoping Reviews
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.
What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences.
Example - Double-Leg and Single-Leg Jump Test Reference Values for Athletes With and Without Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Who Play Popular Pivoting Sports, Including Soccer and Basketball: A Scoping Review
Time – 6-12 months, 1 or more people.
Scoping review: This type of review aims to map the key concepts and extent of research on a broad topic, rather than answering a specific question.
- Purpose: To explore the range and nature of research, clarify concepts, and identify gaps in the literature.
- Methodology: Systematic in its searching but does not require a quality assessment of included studies.
- Best for: Preliminary research on a new topic or before undertaking a full systematic review.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Review type: Umbrella review – Steps
Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews
Umbrella Reviews
Example - Effectiveness of multicomponent lower extremity injury prevention programmes in team-sport athletes: an umbrella review
Time – several months to a year depending on what type it is, recommended to have at least 2 people or more.
______________________________________________________
Mini Systematic review –
What is it?
- A mini-systematic review provides a concise summary of recent research on a specific topic, typically with a narrower scope than a full systematic review.
- It focuses on a single question and often utilizes a limited number of databases and a shorter timeframe for the literature search.
- The goal is to provide a focused and updated overview of the evidence in a given area, particularly useful when there are limited resources or time constraints.
Key differences from a full systematic review
- Scope: Mini-systematic reviews typically address a single question or a very focused area, while full systematic reviews often cover multiple questions and a broader scope.
- Databases: Mini-systematic reviews may utilize a limited number of databases, whereas full systematic reviews strive to be more comprehensive by searching a wider range of databases.
- Timeframe: Mini-systematic reviews often focus on a limited timeframe of publications, while full systematic reviews aim to synthesize all valid evidence regardless of publication date.
- Resources: Mini-systematic reviews are often conducted with limited resources, such as those available to a postgraduate student.
When is it appropriate?
Mini-systematic reviews are useful in situations where a full systematic review may not be feasible or necessary, such as:
- Emerging or rapidly evolving fields: When there's a need to quickly synthesize recent findings on new or rapidly changing topics.
- Limited resources or time: When time and resources are constrained, but a systematic approach to literature review is still desired.
- Initial assessment of a topic: To help determine if a topic is amenable to a full systematic review or to organize and direct the approach for future research.
- Updating existing knowledge: To provide an updated overview of key areas and address gaps or inconsistencies in the literature.
Considerations
- While mini-systematic reviews are designed to be concise, it's crucial to maintain rigor and transparency in the methodology to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings.
- The limitations of the narrower scope and timeframe should be acknowledged and discussed when interpreting the results.
In essence, a mini-systematic review is a valuable tool for summarizing evidence in a focused and timely manner, especially when a full systematic review is not practicable. However, authors should be mindful of the trade-offs between scope and rigor, and clearly articulate the methodology employed to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
Key disadvantage
One key disadvantage of conducting a mini-systematic review (also known as a mini-review) in medicine is the potential for increased bias and reduced comprehensiveness compared to a full systematic review.
Mini-systematic review steps:
1. Define the Research Question:
- Start with a clear, focused research question, often framed using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework.
- Consider the scope and feasibility of a mini review, ensuring the question is answerable within the constraints of a smaller review.
- Conduct preliminary searches to identify existing reviews and refine the question.
2. Develop a Protocol:
- Create a detailed protocol outlining the review's objectives, inclusion/exclusion criteria, search strategy, data extraction forms, and quality assessment methods.
- This protocol serves as a roadmap and ensures consistency throughout the review process.
- Consider registering the protocol with a registry like PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).
3. Search for Relevant Studies:
- Conduct comprehensive searches of relevant databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete).
- Develop a search strategy using keywords and MeSH terms relevant to the research question.
- Consider searching grey literature (e.g., conference abstracts, theses) to minimize publication bias.
4. Select Studies:
- Apply the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria to the retrieved citations.
- Screen titles and abstracts, then full-text articles to identify eligible studies.
- Document the selection process using a PRISMA flow diagram.
5. Extract Data:
- Develop a data extraction form based on the review's objectives and the protocol.
- Extract relevant information from included studies, such as study characteristics, participant demographics, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias assessments.
- Consider using a data extraction tool to facilitate this process.
6. Assess Study Quality:
- Evaluate the methodological quality of included studies using validated tools (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, AMSTAR 2).
- Assess potential sources of bias and limitations in each study.
- Document the quality assessment process and results.
7. Synthesize the Evidence:
- Synthesize the findings of the included studies, either qualitatively or quantitatively (e.g., meta-analysis).
- Consider using forest plots or other visual aids to present the results.
- Assess the consistency and strength of the evidence.
8. Report the Findings:
- Write a concise and clear report of the review, including the methods, results, and conclusions.
- Use the PRISMA guidelines to structure the report.
- Consider writing a plain language summary for a broader audience.
Mini-review: Criteria
Introduction to Mini-Review
Example - Vestibular Rehabilitation Effectiveness for Adults With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Concussion: A Mini-Systematic Review
Time – several months, 1 or more people.
______________________________________________________
Once you have a clearer idea of the type of review you’d like to pursue, please come see me so we can discuss the next steps together.
Should you wish for me to present this topic, or any other, to your group or to you individually, please don’t hesitate to reach out. I would be glad to assist.
Happy Searching!
Dawn Field, Your UIWSOM Medical Informatics Librarian