traditional vs systematic literature review

• En español – ExME
• Em português – EME

Traditional reviews vs. systematic reviews

Posted on 3rd February 2016 by Weyinmi Demeyin

Millions of articles are published yearly (1) , making it difficult for clinicians to keep abreast of the literature. Reviews of literature are necessary in order to provide clinicians with accurate, up to date information to ensure appropriate management of their patients. Reviews usually involve summaries and synthesis of primary research findings on a particular topic of interest and can be grouped into 2 main categories; the ‘traditional’ review and the ‘systematic’ review with major differences between them.

Traditional reviews provide a broad overview of a research topic with no clear methodological approach (2) . Information is collected and interpreted unsystematically with subjective summaries of findings. Authors aim to describe and discuss the literature from a contextual or theoretical point of view. Although the reviews may be conducted by topic experts, due to preconceived ideas or conclusions, they could be subject to bias.

Systematic reviews are overviews of the literature undertaken by identifying, critically appraising and synthesising results of primary research studies using an explicit, methodological approach(3). They aim to summarise the best available evidence on a particular research topic.

The main differences between traditional reviews and systematic reviews are summarised below in terms of the following characteristics: Authors, Study protocol, Research question, Search strategy, Sources of literature, Selection criteria, Critical appraisal, Synthesis, Conclusions, Reproducibility, and Update.

Traditional reviews

• Authors: One or more authors usually experts in the topic of interest
• Study protocol: No study protocol
• Research question: Broad to specific question, hypothesis not stated
• Search strategy: No detailed search strategy, search is probably conducted using keywords
• Sources of literature: Not usually stated and non-exhaustive, usually well-known articles. Prone to publication bias
• Selection criteria: No specific selection criteria, usually subjective. Prone to selection bias
• Critical appraisal: Variable evaluation of study quality or method
• Synthesis: Often qualitative synthesis of evidence
• Conclusions: Sometimes evidence based but can be influenced by author’s personal belief
• Reproducibility: Findings cannot be reproduced independently as conclusions may be subjective
• Update: Cannot be continuously updated

Systematic reviews

• Authors: Two or more authors are involved in good quality systematic reviews, may comprise experts in the different stages of the review
• Study protocol: Written study protocol which includes details of the methods to be used
• Research question: Specific question which may have all or some of PICO components (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome). Hypothesis is stated
• Search strategy: Detailed and comprehensive search strategy is developed
• Sources of literature: List of databases, websites and other sources of included studies are listed. Both published and unpublished literature are considered
• Selection criteria: Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Critical appraisal: Rigorous appraisal of study quality
• Synthesis: Narrative, quantitative or qualitative synthesis
• Conclusions: Conclusions drawn are evidence based
• Reproducibility: Accurate documentation of method means results can be reproduced
• Update: Systematic reviews can be periodically updated to include new evidence

Decisions and health policies about patient care should be evidence based in order to provide the best treatment for patients. Systematic reviews provide a means of systematically identifying and synthesising the evidence, making it easier for policy makers and practitioners to assess such relevant information and hopefully improve patient outcomes.

• Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Evidence-Based Approach to the Medical Literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1997; 12(Suppl 2):S5-S14. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.12.s2.1.x. Available from:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497222/
• Rother ET. Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta paul. enferm. [Internet]. 2007 June [cited 2015 Dec 25]; 20(2): v-vi. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-21002007000200001&lng=en. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001
• Khan KS, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2001.

Weyinmi Demeyin

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

No Comments on Traditional reviews vs. systematic reviews

THE INFORMATION IS VERY MUCH VALUABLE, A LOT IS INDEED EXPECTED IN ORDER TO MASTER SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Thank you very much for the information here. My question is : Is it possible for me to do a systematic review which is not directed toward patients but just a specific population? To be specific can I do a systematic review on the mental health needs of students?

Hi Rosemary, I wonder whether it would be useful for you to look at Module 1 of the Cochrane Interactive Learning modules. This is a free module, open to everyone (you will just need to register for a Cochrane account if you don’t already have one). This guides you through conducting a systematic review, with a section specifically around defining your research question, which I feel will help you in understanding your question further. Head to this link for more details: https://training.cochrane.org/interactivelearning

I wonder if you have had a search on the Cochrane Library as yet, to see what Cochrane systematic reviews already exist? There is one review, titled “Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students” which may be of interest: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013684/full You can run searches on the library by the population and intervention you are interested in.

I hope these help you start in your investigations. Best wishes. Emma.

La revisión sistemática vale si hay solo un autor?

HI Alex, so sorry for the delay in replying to you. Yes, that is a very good point. I have copied a paragraph from the Cochrane Handbook, here, which does say that for a Cochrane Review, you should have more than one author.

“Cochrane Reviews should be undertaken by more than one person. In putting together a team, authors should consider the need for clinical and methodological expertise for the review, as well as the perspectives of stakeholders. Cochrane author teams are encouraged to seek and incorporate the views of users, including consumers, clinicians and those from varying regions and settings to develop protocols and reviews. Author teams for reviews relevant to particular settings (e.g. neglected tropical diseases) should involve contributors experienced in those settings”.

Thank you for the discussion point, much appreciated.

Hello, I’d like to ask you a question: what’s the difference between systematic review and systematized review? In addition, if the screening process of the review was made by only one author, is still a systematic or is a systematized review? Thanks

Hi. This article from Grant & Booth is a really good one to look at explaining different types of reviews: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x It includes Systematic Reviews and Systematized Reviews. In answer to your second question, have a look at this Chapter from the Cochrane handbook. It covers the question about ‘Who should do a systematic review’. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-01

A really relevant part of this chapter is this: “Systematic reviews should be undertaken by a team. Indeed, Cochrane will not publish a review that is proposed to be undertaken by a single person. Working as a team not only spreads the effort, but ensures that tasks such as the selection of studies for eligibility, data extraction and rating the certainty of the evidence will be performed by at least two people independently, minimizing the likelihood of errors.”

I hope this helps with the question. Best wishes. Emma.

Subscribe to our newsletter

You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.

Related Articles

What do trialists do about participants who are ‘lost to follow-up’?

Participants in clinical trials may exit the study prior to having their results collated; in this case, what do we do with their results?

Family Therapy approaches for Anorexia Nervosa

Is Family Therapy effective in the treatment of Anorexia Nervosa? Emily summarises a recent Cochrane Review in this blog and examines the evidence.

Antihypertensive drugs for primary prevention – at what blood pressure do we start treatment?

In this blog, Giorgio Karam examines the evidence on antihypertensive drugs for primary prevention – when do we start treatment?

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

• 3 minute read
• 57.4K views

Table of Contents

As a researcher, you may be required to conduct a literature review. But what kind of review do you need to complete? Is it a systematic literature review or a standard literature review? In this article, we’ll outline the purpose of a systematic literature review, the difference between literature review and systematic review, and other important aspects of systematic literature reviews.

What is a Systematic Literature Review?

The purpose of systematic literature reviews is simple. Essentially, it is to provide a high-level of a particular research question. This question, in and of itself, is highly focused to match the review of the literature related to the topic at hand. For example, a focused question related to medical or clinical outcomes.

The components of a systematic literature review are quite different from the standard literature review research theses that most of us are used to (more on this below). And because of the specificity of the research question, typically a systematic literature review involves more than one primary author. There’s more work related to a systematic literature review, so it makes sense to divide the work among two or three (or even more) researchers.

Your systematic literature review will follow very clear and defined protocols that are decided on prior to any review. This involves extensive planning, and a deliberately designed search strategy that is in tune with the specific research question. Every aspect of a systematic literature review, including the research protocols, which databases are used, and dates of each search, must be transparent so that other researchers can be assured that the systematic literature review is comprehensive and focused.

Most systematic literature reviews originated in the world of medicine science. Now, they also include any evidence-based research questions. In addition to the focus and transparency of these types of reviews, additional aspects of a quality systematic literature review includes:

• Clear and concise review and summary
• Comprehensive coverage of the topic
• Accessibility and equality of the research reviewed

Systematic Review vs Literature Review

The difference between literature review and systematic review comes back to the initial research question. Whereas the systematic review is very specific and focused, the standard literature review is much more general. The components of a literature review, for example, are similar to any other research paper. That is, it includes an introduction, description of the methods used, a discussion and conclusion, as well as a reference list or bibliography.

A systematic review, however, includes entirely different components that reflect the specificity of its research question, and the requirement for transparency and inclusion. For instance, the systematic review will include:

• Eligibility criteria for included research
• A description of the systematic research search strategy
• An assessment of the validity of reviewed research
• Interpretations of the results of research included in the review

As you can see, contrary to the general overview or summary of a topic, the systematic literature review includes much more detail and work to compile than a standard literature review. Indeed, it can take years to conduct and write a systematic literature review. But the information that practitioners and other researchers can glean from a systematic literature review is, by its very nature, exceptionally valuable.

This is not to diminish the value of the standard literature review. The importance of literature reviews in research writing is discussed in this article . It’s just that the two types of research reviews answer different questions, and, therefore, have different purposes and roles in the world of research and evidence-based writing.

Systematic Literature Review vs Meta Analysis

It would be understandable to think that a systematic literature review is similar to a meta analysis. But, whereas a systematic review can include several research studies to answer a specific question, typically a meta analysis includes a comparison of different studies to suss out any inconsistencies or discrepancies. For more about this topic, check out Systematic Review VS Meta-Analysis article.

Language Editing Plus

With Elsevier’s Language Editing Plus services , you can relax with our complete language review of your systematic literature review or literature review, or any other type of manuscript or scientific presentation. Our editors are PhD or PhD candidates, who are native-English speakers. Language Editing Plus includes checking the logic and flow of your manuscript, reference checks, formatting in accordance to your chosen journal and even a custom cover letter. Our most comprehensive editing package, Language Editing Plus also includes any English-editing needs for up to 180 days.

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Covidence website will be inaccessible as we upgrading our platform on Monday 23rd August at 10am AEST, / 2am CEST/1am BST (Sunday, 15th August 8pm EDT/5pm PDT) 

The difference between a systematic review and a literature review

• Best Practice

Home | Blog | Best Practice | The difference between a systematic review and a literature review

Covidence takes a look at the difference between the two

Most of us are familiar with the terms systematic review and literature review. Both review types synthesise evidence and provide summary information. So what are the differences? What does systematic mean? And which approach is best 🤔 ?

‘ Systematic ‘ describes the review’s methods. It means that they are transparent, reproducible and defined before the search gets underway. That’s important because it helps to minimise the bias that would result from cherry-picking studies in a non-systematic way. 

This brings us to literature reviews. Literature reviews don’t usually apply the same rigour in their methods. That’s because, unlike systematic reviews, they don’t aim to produce an answer to a clinical question. Literature reviews can provide context or background information for a new piece of research. They can also stand alone as a general guide to what is already known about a particular topic. 

Interest in systematic reviews has grown in recent years and the frequency of ‘systematic reviews’ in Google books has overtaken ‘literature reviews’ (with all the usual Ngram Viewer warnings – it searches around 6% of all books, no journals). 

Let’s take a look at the two review types in more detail to highlight some key similarities and differences 👀.

🙋🏾‍♂️ What is a systematic review?

Systematic reviews ask a specific question about the effectiveness of a treatment and answer it by summarising evidence that meets a set of pre-specified criteria. 

The process starts with a research question and a protocol or research plan. A review team searches for studies to answer the question using a highly sensitive search strategy. The retrieved studies are then screened for eligibility using the inclusion and exclusion criteria (this is done by at least two people working independently). Next, the reviewers extract the relevant data and assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, the review team synthesises the extracted study data and presents the results. The process is shown in figure 2 .

The results of a systematic review can be presented in many ways and the choice will depend on factors such as the type of data. Some reviews use meta-analysis to produce a statistical summary of effect estimates. Other reviews use narrative synthesis to present a textual summary.

Covidence accelerates the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment stages of your systematic review. It provides simple workflows and easy collaboration with colleagues around the world.

When is it appropriate to do a systematic review?

If you have a clinical question about the effectiveness of a particular treatment or treatments, you could answer it by conducting a systematic review. Systematic reviews in clinical medicine often follow the PICO framework, which stands for:

👦 Population (or patients)

💊 Intervention

💊 Comparison

Here’s a typical example of a systematic review title that uses the PICO framework: Alarms [intervention] versus drug treatments [comparison] for the prevention of nocturnal enuresis [outcome] in children [population]

Key attributes

• Systematic reviews follow prespecified methods
• The methods are explicit and replicable
• The review team assesses the quality of the evidence and attempts to minimise bias
• Results and conclusions are based on the evidence

🙋🏻‍♀️ What is a literature review?

Literature reviews provide an overview of what is known about a particular topic. They evaluate the material, rather than simply restating it, but the methods used to do this are not usually prespecified and they are not described in detail in the review. The search might be comprehensive but it does not aim to be exhaustive. Literature reviews are also referred to as narrative reviews.

Literature reviews use a topical approach and often take the form of a discussion. Precision and replicability are not the focus, rather the author seeks to demonstrate their understanding and perhaps also present their work in the context of what has come before. Often, this sort of synthesis does not attempt to control for the author’s own bias. The results or conclusion of a literature review is likely to be presented using words rather than statistical methods.

When is it appropriate to do a literature review?

We’ve all written some form of literature review: they are a central part of academic research ✍🏾. Literature reviews often form the introduction to a piece of writing, to provide the context. They can also be used to identify gaps in the literature and the need to fill them with new research 📚.

• Literature reviews take a thematic approach
• They do not specify inclusion or exclusion criteria
• They do not answer a clinical question
• The conclusions might be influenced by the author’s own views

🙋🏽 Ok, but what is a systematic literature review?

A quick internet search retrieves a cool 200 million hits for ‘systematic literature review’. What strange hybrid is this 🤯🤯 ?

Systematic review methodology has its roots in evidence-based medicine but it quickly gained traction in other areas – the social sciences for example – where researchers recognise the value of being methodical and minimising bias. Systematic review methods are increasingly applied to the more traditional types of review, including literature reviews, hence the proliferation of terms like ‘systematic literature review’ and many more.

Beware of the labels 🚨. The terminology used to describe review types can vary by discipline and changes over time. To really understand how any review was done you will need to examine the methods critically and make your own assessment of the quality and reliability of each synthesis 🤓.

Review methods are evolving constantly as researchers find new ways to meet the challenge of synthesising the evidence. Systematic review methods have influenced many other review types, including the traditional literature review. 

Covidence is a web-based tool that saves you time at the screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessment stages of your systematic review. It supports easy collaboration across teams and provides a clear overview of task status.

Get a glimpse inside Covidence and how it works

Laura Mellor. Portsmouth, UK

Perhaps you'd also like....

Data Extraction Tip 5: Communicate Regularly

The Covidence Global Scholarship recipients are putting evidence-based research into practice. We caught up with some of the winners to discover the impact of their work and find out more about their experiences.

Data Extraction Tip 4: Extract the Right Amount of Data

Data Extraction Tip 3: Pilot the Template

Better systematic review management, head office, working for an institution or organisation.

Find out why over 350 of the world’s leading institutions are seeing a surge in publications since using Covidence!

Request a consultation with one of our team members and start empowering your researchers: 

By using our site you consent to our use of cookies to measure and improve our site’s performance. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. 

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 3:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Systematic Reviews

• What is a Systematic Review?
• 1. Choose the Right Kind of Review

Choose the Right Kind of Review

Systematic vs. traditional literature reviews, other types of literature review, what does it take to do a systematic review.

• 2. Formulate Your Question
• 3. Establish a Team
• 4. Develop a Protocol
• 5. Conduct the Search
• 6. Select Studies
• 7. Extract Data
• 8. Synthesize Your Results
• 9. Disseminate Your Report
• Request a Librarian Consultation

Consult With a Librarian

To make an appointment to consult with an HSL librarian on your systematic review, please read our Systematic Review Policy and submit a Systematic Review Consultation Request .

To ask a question or make an appointment for assistance with a narrative review, please complete the Ask a Librarian Form .

Before you begin, it's important to understand how a systematic review is different from other kinds of literature reviews, and to be sure that your objectives and resources are suited to conducting a systematic review.

There are several other types of review that may use methods similar to systematic reviews:

• Scoping Review:  Used to identify the nature and extent of a body of research evidence on a topic. Broader in scope and may not include quality assessment of studies. May be conducted in preparation for a systematic review, or published as a research outcome in its own right.
• Systematized Review:  Attempts to include elements of the systematic review process without meeting all of the standards for a systematic review. May be more appropriate for an individual project, such as a postgraduate student assignment.
• Rapid Review:  Uses systematic review methods to search and appraise results within a time-constrained setting. Not as comprehensive as a systematic review.

The following resources provide information on the various types of review and how to conduct them:

• Article: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Grant, M.J., & Booth, A.;Health Information and Libraries Journal 2009;26;91-108
• Article: Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework Arksey, H., & O'malley, L;International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2005;8;1;19-32
• Article: Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment Khangura et al.;International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2014;30;1;20-27

This quiz can help you determine if you have the resources to undertake a systematic review, or if a different type of review might be more appropriate:

• << Previous: What are the Steps of a Systematic Review?
• Next: 2. Formulate Your Question >>
• Last Updated: May 14, 2024 8:03 AM
• URL: https://hslguides.osu.edu/systematic_reviews

Penn State University Libraries

• Home-Articles and Databases
• Asking the clinical question
• PICO & Finding Evidence
• Evaluating the Evidence
• Systematic Review vs. Literature Review
• Ethical & Legal Issues for Nurses
• Nursing Library Instruction Course
• Data Management Toolkit This link opens in a new window
• Useful Nursing Resources
• Writing Resources
• LionSearch and Finding Articles
• The Catalog and Finding Books

Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

It is common to confuse systematic and literature reviews as both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic.  Even with this common ground, both types vary significantly.  Please review the following chart (and its corresponding poster linked below) for the detailed explanation of each as well as the differences between each type of review.

• What's in a name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters by Lynn Kysh, MLIS, University of Southern California - Norris Medical Library
• << Previous: Evaluating the Evidence
• Next: Ethical & Legal Issues for Nurses >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 11:54 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/nursing

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

• Formulate a research question
• Develop a protocol
• Search for all relevant studies
• Apply the selection criteria
• Extract the data
• Synthesize the data
• Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

• A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
• If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
• Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
• Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
• Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

• They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
• Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
• They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
• They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

• They’re time-consuming .
• They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

• Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
• Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

• Population(s) or problem(s)
• Intervention(s)
• Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

• What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

• Type of study design(s)
• The population of patients with eczema
• The intervention of probiotics
• In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
• The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
• Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

• What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

• Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
• Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
• Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
• Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
• Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

• Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
• Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
• Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
• Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

• Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
• Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
• Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
• Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

• Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
• Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

• Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
• Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

• Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
• Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

• Abstract : A summary of the review
• Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
• Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
• Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
• Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
• Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Literature Review vs Systematic Review

Literature review vs. systematic review, your librarian.

It’s common to confuse systematic and literature reviews because both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic. Regardless of this commonality, both types of review vary significantly. The following table provides a detailed explanation as well as the differences between systematic and literature reviews. 

Kysh, Lynn (2013): Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. [figshare]. Available at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364

Primary vs. Secondary Research

Parts of the Article

• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 2:30 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sjsu.edu/LitRevVSSysRev

Literature Review Research

Literature review vs. systematic review.

• Literature Review Process
• Finding Literature Reviews
• Helpful Tips and Resources
• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window

Resources for Systematic Reviews

• NIH Systematic Review Protocols and Protocol Registries Systematic review services and information from the National Institutes of Health.
• Purdue University Systematic Reviews LibGuide Purdue University has created this helpful online research guide on systematic reviews. Most content is available publicly but please note that some links are accessible only to Purdue students.

It is common to confuse literature and systematic reviews because both are used to provide a summary of the existing literature or research on a specific topic. Despite this commonality, these two reviews vary significantly. The table below highlights the differences.

Kysh, Lynn (2013). Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. figshare. Poster. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364.v1

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Literature Review Process >>
• Last Updated: May 6, 2024 4:11 PM
• URL: https://tcsedsystem.libguides.com/literature_review

Types of Literature Reviews : Home

• Health Science Information Consortium
• University Health Network - New
• Types of Literature Reviews

Need More Help?

• Knowledge Synthesis Support
• Literature Search Request
• The Right Review for You - Workshop Recording (YouTube) 27min video From UHN Libraries Recorded Nov 2021
• The Screening Phase for Reviews Tutorial This tutorial presents information on the screening process for systematic reviews or other knowledge syntheses, and contains a variety of resources for successfully preparing to complete this important research stage.
• Workshops Find more UHN Libraries workshops, live and on-demand, and other learning opportunities helpful for knowledge synthesis projects.

How to Choose Your Review Method

TREAD* Lightly and Consider...

• Available T ime for conducting your review
• Any R esource constraints within which you must deliver your review
• Any requirements for specialist E xpertise in order to complete the review
• The requirements of the A udience for your review and its intended purpose
• The richness, thickness and availability of D ata within included studies

* Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D.  Systematic approaches to a successful literature review.  2nd edition.  Los Angeles, CA:  Sage, 2016.  (p.36)

How do I write a Review Protocol?

• What is a Protocol? (UofT)
• Guidance on Registering a Review with PROSPERO

Writing Resources

• Advice on Academic Writing (University of Toronto)
• How to write a great research paper using reporting guidelines (EQUATOR Network)
• Instructions to Authors in the Health Sciences
• Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals (ICMJE)
• Writing resources guide (BMC)

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides an overview of what's been written about a specific topic. It is a generic term. There are many different types of literature reviews which can cover a wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. Choosing the type of review you wish to conduct will depend on the purpose of your review, and the time and resources you have available.

This page will provide definitions of some of the most common review types in the health sciences and links to relevant reporting guidelines or methodological papers.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal . 2009 Jun 1;26(2):91-108. 

• Summary of Five Types of Reviews Table summarizing the characteristics, guidelines etc. of 5 common types of review article.

Traditional (Narrative) Review

Traditional (narrative) literature reviews provide a broad overview of a research topic with no clear methodological approach. Information is collected and interpreted unsystematically with subjective summaries of findings. Authors aim to describe and discuss the literature from a contextual or theoretical point of view. Although the reviews may be conducted by topic experts, due to preconceived ideas or conclusions, they could be subject to bias. This sort of literature review can be appropriate if you have a broad topic area, are working on your own, or have time constraints.

Agarwal S, Charlesworth M, Elrakhawy M. How to write a narrative review . Anaesthesia . 2023;78(9):1162-1166. doi:10.1111/anae.16016

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade . Journal of Chiropractic Medicine . 2006;5(3):101-117. doi:10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6.

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews . Medical Writing. 2015 Dec 1;24(4):230-5.

Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews ? European journal of clinical investigation . 2018;48:e12931.

Knowledge Synthesis

• What is Knowledge Synthesis?
• Learn more!

CIHR Definition of Knowledge Syntheses:

“The contextualization and integration of research findings of individual research studies within the larger body of knowledge on the topic. A synthesis must be reproducible and transparent in its methods, using quantitative and/or qualitative methods.”  - A Guide to Knowledge Synthesis, CIHR

Grimshaw J. A Guide to Knowledge Synthesis [Internet]. CIHR. Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2010.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Synthesis Resources [Internet]. CIHR. Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2013.

Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, van der Wilt, Gert Jan, et al.  Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches . Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2018;99:41-52.

Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, et al. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review . BMC Medical Research Methodology . 2012;12:114. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-114.

Kastner M, Antony J, Soobiah C, Straus SE, Tricco AC. Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology . 2016;73:43-49.

Knowledge Synthesis Support at UHN

Common Types of Knowledge Syntheses

• Systematic Reviews
• Meta-Analysis
• Scoping Reviews
• Rapid or Restricted Reviews
• Clinical Practice Guidelines
• Realist Reviews
• Mixed Methods Reviews
• Qualitative Synthesis
• Narrative Synthesis

A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias, in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making. (See Section 1.2 in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions .)

A systematic review is not the same as a traditional (narrative) review or a literature review. Unlike other kinds of reviews, systematic reviews must be as thorough and unbiased as possible, and must also make explicit how the search was conducted. Systematic reviews may or may not include a meta-analysis.

On average, a systematic review project takes a year. If your timelines are shorter, you may wish to consider other types of synthesis projects or a traditional (narrative) review. See suggested timelines for a Cochrane Review for reference.

Systematic Review Overview (UHN)

Systematic Review Overview workshop recording (UHN)

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

Greyson D, Rafferty E, Slater L, et al. Systematic review searches must be systematic, comprehensive, and transparent: a critique of Perman et al. BMC public health . 2019;19:153.

Ioannidis J. P. (2016). The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses . The Milbank quarterly , 94 (3), 485-514.

A subset of systematic reviews. Meta-analysis is a technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results.

"..a form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed at mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research related to a defined area or field by systematically searching, selecting and synthesizing existing knowledge." (Colquhoun, HL et al., 2014)

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework .   International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice , 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616.

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H. & O'Brien, K.K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology . Implementation Sci 5 , 69 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., . . . Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 67(12), 1291-1294. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews . Int.J.Evid Based.Healthc . 2015 Sep;13(3):141-146.

Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis , JBI, 2020.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation . Ann Intern Med . [Epub ahead of print ] doi: 10.7326/M18-0850.

“…a type of knowledge synthesis in which systematic review processes are accelerated and methods are streamlined to complete the review more quickly than is the case for typical systematic reviews. Rapid reviews take an average of 5–12 weeks to complete, thus providing evidence within a shorter time frame required for some health policy and systems decisions.” (Tricco AC et al., 2017)

Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews . Implementation Science : IS . 2010;5:56. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-56.

Langlois EV, Straus SE, Antony J, King VJ, Tricco AC. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage . BMJ Global Health . 2019;4:e001178.

Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE, editors. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide . Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T , Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment . International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care . 2008;24(2):133-9.

“Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.” Source: Institute of Medicine. (1990). Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program, M.J. Field and K.N. Lohr (eds.) Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Page 38.

–Disclosure of any author conflicts of interest

AGREE Reporting Checklist

Alonso-Coello, P., Oxman, A. D., Moberg, J., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Akl, E. A., Davoli, M., ... & Guyatt, G. H. (2016). GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines . BMJ , 353 , i2089.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions . Journal of Health Services Research & Policy . 2005;10:21-34.

Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research . Implementation science : IS . 2012;7:33.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Realist methods in medical education research: what are they and what can they contribute? Medical Education . 2012;46(1):89-96.

"Mixed-methods systematic reviews can be defined as combining the findings of qualitative and quantitative studies within a single systematic review to address the same overlapping or complementary review questions." (Harden A, 2010)

Harden A.   Mixed-Methods Systematic Reviews: Integrating quantitative and qualitative findings .   NCDDR:FOCUS. 2010.

Lizarondo L, Stern C, Apostolo J, et al. Five common pitfalls in mixed methods systematic reviews: lessons learned . J Clin Epidemiol . 2022;148:178-183. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.014

Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews . Annual review of public health . 2014;35:29-45.

Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews . International journal of evidence-based healthcare . 2015;13:121-131.

The Joanna Briggs Institute 2014 Reviewers Manual: Methodology for JBI Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews .

There are various methods for integrating the results from qualitative studies. "Systematic reviews of qualitative research have an important role in informing the delivery of evidence-based healthcare. Qualitative systematic reviews have investigated the culture of communities, exploring how consumers experience, perceive and manage their health and journey through the health system, and can evaluate components and activities of health services such as health promotion and community development." (Lockwood C et al., 2015)

Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, van der Wilt, Gert Jan, et al. Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches . Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2018;99:41-52.

Ring N, Jepson R, Ritchie K. Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment . International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care . 2011;27:384-390.

Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation . International journal of evidence-based healthcare . 2015;13:179-187.

France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance . Journal of advanced nursing . 2019.

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2009;9:59. Published 2009 Aug 11. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59.

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2008;8:45. Published 2008 Jul 10. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series . Implementation science : IS . 2018;13:2.

"Narrative synthesis refers to an approach to the systematic review and synthesis of findings from multiple studies that relies primarily on the use of words and text to summarise and explain the findings of the synthesis. Whilst narrative synthesis can involve the manipulation of statistical data, the defining characteristic is that it adopts a textual approach to the process of synthesis to ‘tell the story’ of the findings from the included studies." (Popay J, 2006)

Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Antony J, et al. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology . 2016;73:19-28.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews . Lancaster: ESRC Research Methods Programme; 2006.

Snilstveit B, Oliver S, Vojtkova M. Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice . Journal of development effectiveness . 2012 Sep 1;4(3):409-29. 

Lucas PJ, Baird J, Arai L, Law C, Roberts HM. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews . BMC medical research methodology . 2007 Dec;7(1):4.

Ryan R. Cochrane Consumer sand Communication Review Group. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group: data synthesis and analysis . June 2013.

• Last Updated: Jul 19, 2024 4:53 PM
• URL: https://guides.hsict.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=705263

We acknowledge this sacred land on which the University Health Network operates. For thousands of years it has been the traditional territory of the Huron-Wendat, the Haudenosaunee, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. This territory was the subject of the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the Confederacy of the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. Today, the meeting place of Toronto is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and learn on this territory

UHN Library and Information Services

Systematic Review Process: Types of Reviews

• Definitions of a Systematic Review

Types of Reviews

• Systematic Review Planning Process
• Resources Needed to Conduct a Review
• Reporting Guidelines
• Where to Search
• How to Search
• Screening and Study Selection
• Data Extraction
• Appraisal and Analysis
• Citation Management
• Additional Resources: Guides and Books
• Using Covidence for Your Systematic Review
• Librarian Collaboration

Narrative vs. Systematic Reviews

People often confuse systematic and literature (narrative) reviews. They both are used to provide a summary of the existing literature or research on a specific topic.

A narrative or traditional literature review is a comprehensive, critical, and objective analysis of the current knowledge on a topic. They are an essential part of the research process and help to establish a theoretical framework and focus or context for your research. A literature review will help you to identify patterns and trends in the literature so that you can identify gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. This should lead you to a sufficiently focused research question that justifies your research.

A systematic review is comprehensive and has minimal bias. It is based on a specific question and uses eligibility criteria and a pre-planned protocol. This type of study evaluates the quality of evidence. 

A systematic review can be either quantitative or qualitative:

• If quantitative, the review will include studies that have numerical data.
• If qualitative, the review derives data from observation, interviews, or verbal interactions and focuses on the meanings and interpretations of the participants. It will include focus groups, interviews, observations and diaries.

Narrative reviews in comparison provide a perspective on topic (like a textbook chapter), may have no specified search strategy, might have significant bias issues, and may not evaluate quality of evidence.

This table provides a detailed comparison of systematic and literature (narrative) reviews.

Tools to Help You Choose a Review Type

There are other comprehensive literature reviews of similar methodology to the systematic review. These tools can help you determine which type of review you may want to conduct. 

• The Review Ready Reckoner - Assessment Tool (RRRsAT) is a chart created as an adaptation of Andrew Booth's article on review typology. The chart that describes the features of multiple review types listing characteristics that distinguish each type and including sample of each type of review.
• The What Review is Right for You tool asks five short questions to help you identify the most appropriate method for a review.

Use this chart  to determine the type of review you are interested in writing and to learn the differences in the stages and processes of various reviews compared to systematic reviews.

Source: Yale University

The type of review you conduct will depend on the purpose of the review, your question, your resources, expertise, and type of data.

Here are two suggested articles to consult if you want to know more about review types:

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.   Health information & libraries journal ,  26 (2), 91-108. This article defines 14 types of reviews. There is a helpful summary table on pp.94-95

Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A.  Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.   Health information & libraries journal . 2019;36(3):202–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276

This Comparison table is derived from a guide which is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license , and was originally included in a workbook by Amanda Wanner at Plymouth University for Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews. Stephanie Roth at Temple University remixed the original version. Many thanks and much appreciation to Amanda Wanner and Stephanie Roth for allowing me to create a derivative of their work.

Funaro, M., Nyhan, K., & Brackett, A. (n.d.).   What type of review could you write?  Yale Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library.

• << Previous: Definitions of a Systematic Review
• Next: Systematic Review Planning Process >>
• Last Updated: Jul 1, 2024 9:51 AM
• URL: https://library.aah.org/guides/systematicreview

About Systematic Reviews

The Difference Between Narrative Review and Systematic Review

Automate every stage of your literature review to produce evidence-based research faster and more accurately.

Reviews in scientific research are tools that help synthesize literature on a topic of interest and describe its current state. Different types of reviews are conducted depending on the research question and the scope of the review. A systematic review is one such review that is robust, reproducible, and transparent. It involves collating evidence by using all of the eligible and critically appraised literature available on a certain topic. To know more about how to do a systematic review , you can check out our article at the link. The primary aim of a systematic review is to recommend best practices and inform policy development. Hence, there is a need for high-quality, focused, and precise methods and reporting. For more exploratory research questions, methods such as a scoping review are employed. Be sure you understand the difference between a systematic review and a scoping review , if you don’t, check out the link to learn more.

When the word “review” alone is used to describe a research paper, the first thing that should come to mind is that it is a literature review. Almost every researcher starts off their career with literature reviews. To know the difference between a systematic review and a literature review , read on here.  Traditional literature reviews are also sometimes referred to as narrative reviews since they use narrative analysis to synthesize data. In this article, we will explore the differences between a systematic review and a narrative review, in further detail.

Learn More About DistillerSR

(Article continues below)

Narrative Review vs Systematic Review

Both systematic and narrative reviews are classified as secondary research studies since they both use existing primary research studies e.g. case studies. Despite this similarity, there are key differences in their methodology and scope. The major differences between them lie in their objectives, methodology, and application areas.

Differences In Objective

The main objective of a systematic review is to formulate a well-defined research question and use qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze all the available evidence attempting to answer the question. In contrast, narrative reviews can address one or more questions with a much broader scope. The efficacy of narrative reviews is irreplaceable in tracking the development of a scientific principle, or a clinical concept. This ability to conduct a wider exploration could be lost in the restrictive framework of a systematic review.

Differences in Methodology

For systematic reviews, there are guidelines provided by the Cochrane Handbook, ROSES, and the PRISMA statement that can help determine the protocol, and methodology to be used. However, for narrative reviews, such standard guidelines do not exist. Although, there are recommendations available.

Systematic reviews comprise an explicit, transparent, and pre-specified methodology. The methodology followed in a systematic review is as follows,

• Formulating the clinical research question to answer (PICO approach)
• Developing a protocol (with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of primary studies)
• Performing a detailed and broad literature search
• Critical appraisal of the selected studies
• Data extraction from the primary studies included in the review
• Data synthesis and analysis using qualitative or quantitative methods [3].
• Reporting and discussing results of data synthesis.
• Developing conclusions based on the findings.

A narrative review on the other hand does not have a strict protocol to be followed. The design of the review depends on its author and the objectives of the review. As yet, there is no consensus on the standard structure of a narrative review. The preferred approach is the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) [2]. Apart from the author’s preferences, a narrative review structure must respect the journal style and conventions followed in the respective field.

Differences in Application areas

Narrative reviews are aimed at identifying and summarizing what has previously been published. Their general applications include exploring existing debates, the appraisal of previous studies conducted on a certain topic, identifying knowledge gaps, and speculating on the latest interventions available. They are also used to track and report on changes that have occurred in an existing field of research. The main purpose is to deepen the understanding in a certain research area. The results of a systematic review provide the most valid evidence to guide clinical decision-making and inform policy development [1]. They have now become the gold standard in evidence-based medicine [1].

Although both types of reviews come with their own benefits and limitations, researchers should carefully consider the differences between them before making a decision on which review type to use.

• Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. AJN. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.
• Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropratic Medicine 2006;5:101–117.
• Linares-Espinós E, Hernández V, Domínguez-Escrig JL, Fernández-Pello S, Hevia V, Mayor J, et al. Metodología de una revisión sistemática. Actas Urol Esp. 2018;42:499–506.

3 Reasons to Connect

Literature Review: Traditional or narrative literature reviews

Traditional or narrative literature reviews.

• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic literature reviews
• Annotated bibliography
• Keeping up to date with literature
• Finding a thesis
• Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature
• Managing and analysing your literature
• Further reading and resources

A narrative or traditional literature review is a comprehensive, critical and objective analysis of the current knowledge on a topic. They are an essential part of the research process and help to establish a theoretical framework and focus or context for your research. A literature review will help you to identify patterns and trends in the literature so that you can identify gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. This should lead you to a sufficiently focused research question that justifies your research.

Onwuegbuzie and Frels (pp 24-25, 2016) define four common types of narrative reviews:

• General literature review that provides a review of the most important and critical aspects of the current knowledge of the topic. This general literature review forms the introduction to a thesis or dissertation and must be defined by the research objective, underlying hypothesis or problem or the reviewer's argumentative thesis.
• Theoretical literature review which examines how theory shapes or frames research
• Methodological literature review where the research methods and design are described. These methodological reviews outline the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used and provide future direction
• Historical literature review which focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

References and additional resources

Baker, J. D. (2016) The purpose, process and methods of writing a literature review: Editorial . Association of Operating Room Nurses. AORN Journal, 103 (3), 265-269. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2016.01.016

• << Previous: Types of literature reviews
• Next: Scoping Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Aug 11, 2024 4:07 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

Traditional Literature Review vs Systematic Review

Dr. David McClellan, B.Sc., M.H.A

A traditional review provides a broad overview of a subject without any method of approach or organized manner. This type of review includes current research and information that already exists about a subject. It identifies gaps in research, compares different views, and highlights exemplary studies. A traditional view concludes by summarizing the information in general. According to Paré, Kitsiou (2017), “the narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge. Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed. Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view.” The timeline of traditional review is from weeks to months, whereas a systematic review is from months to years.

Systematic reviews are more extensive including much more data and findings. They use a methodological approach and utilize every resource available. A literature review involves one or more authors, whereas a systematic review involves at least three. A systematic approach is much more reliable and thorough with more authors and resources. According to

Misra and Agarwal (2018), “ a systematic literature review should be conducted, which must be extensive, based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, covering multiple databases and preferably, also attempt to look at unpublished literature by browsing abstracts of major conferences and ongoing clinical trials.” Systematic reviews are must more reputable.

Systematic reviews answer a research question using all evidence or data that is pertinent. A meta-analysis doesn’t answer a question but uses statistical methods to form a summary of related literature. Ahn and Kang (2018, para 2) states, “ a meta-analysis is a valid, objective, and scientific method of analyzing and combining different results. Usually, in order to obtain more reliable results, a meta-analysis is mainly conducted on randomized controlled trials, which have a high level of evidence.” Both of them present results by combining and analyzing data from different studies conducted on similar research topics.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be used together by collecting all the information pertinent to the study. By collecting and comparing all the information available, researchers can gain insight into the case and improve the effectiveness of the study. A meta-analysis provides an objective review of a study minimizing any bias or favoritism.

Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean Journal of anesthesiology , 71 (2), 103–112. DOI:10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103

Misra, D. P., & Agarwal, V. (2018). Systematic Reviews: Challenges for Their Justification, Related Comprehensive Searches, and Implications. Journal of Korean medical science , 33 (12), e92. DOI:10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e92

Paré, G., Kitsiou, S. (2017). Methods for Literature Reviews. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/

Written by Dr. David McClellan, B.Sc., M.H.A

Hello everyone… my name is David McClellan and I reside in Southern California.

Text to speech

Literature Review: Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

Systemic Review & Literature Review

• What's in a name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters.

Evidence Pyramid

The evidence pyramid (image above) visually depicts the evidential strength of different research designs. Studies with the highest internal validity, characterized by a high degree of quantitative analysis, review, analysis, and stringent scientific methodology, are at the top of the pyramid. Observational research and expert opinion reside at the bottom of the pyramid. In evidence-based practice the systematic review is considered the highest level of information and is at the top of the pyramid.  ( The pyramid was produced by  HLWIKI Canada  and is CC).

• << Previous: Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 12:07 PM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

5 differences between a systematic review and other types of literature review

September 26, 2017.

There are many types of reviews of the medical and public health evidence, each with its own benefits and challenges. In this blog post, we detail five key differences between a systematic review and other types of reviews, including narrative and comprehensive reviews.

First, we must define some terms. “Literature review” is a general term that describes a summary of the evidence on a certain topic. Literature reviews can be very simple or highly complex, and they can use a variety of methods for finding, assessing, and presenting evidence. A “systematic review” is a specific type of review that uses rigorous and transparent methods in an effort to summarize all of the available evidence with little to no bias. A good systematic review adheres to the international standards set forth in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 27-item checklist. 1 Reviews that are less rigorous are often called “narrative,” “comprehensive,” or simply “literature reviews.”

So, what are the 5 key differences between a systematic review and other types of review?

1. The goal of the review The goal of a literature review can be broad and descriptive (example: “ Describe the available treatments for sleep apnea ”) or it can be to answer a specific question (example: “ What is the efficacy of CPAP for people with sleep apnea? ”). The goal of a systematic review is to answer a specific and focused question (example: “ Which treatment for sleep apnea reduces the apnea-hypopnea index more: CPAP or mandibular advancement device? ”). People seeking to make evidence-based decisions look to systematic reviews due to their completeness and reduced risk of bias.

2. Searching for evidence Where and how one searches for evidence is an important difference. While literature reviews require only one database or source, systematic reviews require more comprehensive efforts to locate evidence. Multiple databases are searched, each with a specifically tailored search strategy (usually designed and implemented by a specialist librarian). In addition, systematic reviews often include attempts to find data beyond typical databases. Systematic reviewers might search conference abstracts or the web sites of professional associations or pharmaceutical companies, and they may contact study authors to obtain additional or unpublished data. All of these extra steps reflect an attempt to minimize bias in the summary of the evidence. 3. Assessing search results In a systematic review, the parameters for inclusion are established at the start of the project and applied consistently to search results. Usually, such parameters take the form of PICOs (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes). Reviewers hold search results against strict criteria based on the PICOs to determine appropriateness for inclusion. Another key component of a systematic review is dual independent review of search results; each search result is reviewed by at least two people independently. In many other literature reviews, there is only a single reviewer. This can result in bias (even if it is unintentional) and missed studies.

4. Summary of findings In a systematic review, an effort is usually made to assess the quality of the evidence, often using risk of bias assessment, at the study level and often across studies. Other literature reviews rarely assess and report any formal quality assessment by individual study. Risk of bias assessment is important to a thorough summary of the evidence, since conclusions based on biased results can be incorrect (and dangerous, at worst). Results from a systematic review can sometimes be pooled quantitatively (e.g., in a meta-analysis) to provide numeric estimates of treatment effects, for example.

5. Utility of results Due to the rigor and transparency applied to a systematic review, it is not surprising that the results are usually of higher quality and at lower risk of bias than results from other types of literature review. Literature reviews can be useful to inform background sections of papers and reports and to give the reader an overview of a topic. Systematic reviews are used by professional associations and government agencies to issue guidelines and recommendations; such important activities are rarely based on a non-systematic review. Clinicians may also rely on high quality systematic reviews to make evidence-based decisions about patient care.

Each type of review has a place in the scientific literature. For narrow, specific research questions, a systematic review can provide a thorough summary and assessment of all of the available evidence. For broader research questions, other types of literature review can summarize the best available evidence using targeted search strategies. Ultimately, the choice of methodology depends on the research question and the goal of the review.

[1] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyse s: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.

Start your free trial

Arrange a trial for your organisation and discover why FSTA is the leading database for reliable research on the sciences of food and health.

REQUEST A FREE TRIAL

• Research Skills Blog

What is the difference between a systematic review and a systematic literature review?

By Carol Hollier on 07-Jan-2020 14:23:00

For those not immersed in systematic reviews, understanding the difference between a systematic review and a systematic literature review can be confusing.  It helps to realise that a “systematic review” is a clearly defined thing, but ambiguity creeps in around the phrase “systematic literature review” because people can and do use it in a variety of ways. 

A systematic review is a research study of research studies.  To qualify as a systematic review, a review needs to adhere to standards of transparency and reproducibility.  It will use explicit methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise empirical results from different but similar studies.  The study will be done in stages:  

• In stage one, the question, which must be answerable, is framed
• Stage two is a comprehensive literature search to identify relevant studies
• In stage three the identified literature’s quality is scrutinised and decisions made on whether or not to include each article in the review
• In stage four the evidence is summarised and, if the review includes a meta-analysis, the data extracted; in the final stage, findings are interpreted. [1]

Some reviews also state what degree of confidence can be placed on that answer, using the GRADE scale.  By going through these steps, a systematic review provides a broad evidence base on which to make decisions about medical interventions, regulatory policy, safety, or whatever question is analysed.   By documenting each step explicitly, the review is not only reproducible, but can be updated as more evidence on the question is generated.

Sometimes when people talk about a “systematic literature review”, they are using the phrase interchangeably with “systematic review”.  However, people can also use the phrase systematic literature review to refer to a literature review that is done in a fairly systematic way, but without the full rigor of a systematic review. 

For instance, for a systematic review, reviewers would strive to locate relevant unpublished studies in grey literature and possibly by contacting researchers directly.  Doing this is important for combatting publication bias, which is the tendency for studies with positive results to be published at a higher rate than studies with null results.  It is easy to understand how this well-documented tendency can skew a review’s findings, but someone conducting a systematic literature review in the loose sense of the phrase might, for lack of resource or capacity, forgo that step. 

Another difference might be in who is doing the research for the review. A systematic review is generally conducted by a team including an information professional for searches and a statistician for meta-analysis, along with subject experts.  Team members independently evaluate the studies being considered for inclusion in the review and compare results, adjudicating any differences of opinion.   In contrast, a systematic literature review might be conducted by one person. 

Overall, while a systematic review must comply with set standards, you would expect any review called a systematic literature review to strive to be quite comprehensive.  A systematic literature review would contrast with what is sometimes called a narrative or journalistic literature review, where the reviewer’s search strategy is not made explicit, and evidence may be cherry-picked to support an argument.

FSTA is a key tool for systematic reviews and systematic literature reviews in the sciences of food and health.

The patents indexed help find results of research not otherwise publicly available because it has been done for commercial purposes.

The FSTA thesaurus will surface results that would be missed with keyword searching alone. Since the thesaurus is designed for the sciences of food and health, it is the most comprehensive for the field. 

All indexing and abstracting in FSTA is in English, so you can do your searching in English yet pick up non-English language results, and get those results translated if they meet the criteria for inclusion in a systematic review.

FSTA includes grey literature (conference proceedings) which can be difficult to find, but is important to include in comprehensive searches.

FSTA content has a deep archive. It goes back to 1969 for farm to fork research, and back to the late 1990s for food-related human nutrition literature—systematic reviews (and any literature review) should include not just the latest research but all relevant research on a question. 

You can also use FSTA to find literature reviews.

FSTA allows you to easily search for review articles (both narrative and systematic reviews) by using the subject heading or thesaurus term “REVIEWS" and an appropriate free-text keyword.

On the Web of Science or EBSCO platform, an FSTA search for reviews about cassava would look like this: DE "REVIEWS" AND cassava.

On the Ovid platform using the multi-field search option, the search would look like this: reviews.sh. AND cassava.af.

In 2011 FSTA introduced the descriptor META-ANALYSIS, making it easy to search specifically for systematic reviews that include a meta-analysis published from that year onwards.

On the EBSCO or Web of Science platform, an FSTA search for systematic reviews with meta-analyses about staphylococcus aureus would look like this: DE "META-ANALYSIS" AND staphylococcus aureus.

On the Ovid platform using the multi-field search option, the search would look like this: meta-analysis.sh. AND staphylococcus aureus.af.

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses published before 2011 are included in the REVIEWS controlled vocabulary term in the thesaurus.

An easy way to locate pre-2011 systematic reviews with meta-analyses is to search the subject heading or thesaurus term "REVIEWS" AND meta-analysis as a free-text keyword AND another appropriate free-text keyword.

On the Web of Science or EBSCO platform, the FSTA search would look like this: DE "REVIEWS" AND meta-analysis AND carbohydrate*

On the Ovid platform using the multi-field search option, the search would look like this: reviews .sh. AND meta-analysis.af. AND carbohydrate*.af.  

Related resources:

• Literature Searching Best Practise Guide
• Predatory publishing: Investigating researchers’ knowledge & attitudes
• The IFIS Expert Guide to Journal Publishing

Library image by  Paul Schafer , microscope image by Matthew Waring , via Unsplash.

• FSTA - Food Science & Technology Abstracts
• IFIS Collections
• Resources Hub
• Diversity Statement
• Sustainability Commitment
• Company news
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use for IFIS Collections

Ground Floor, 115 Wharfedale Road,  Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire RG41 5RB

Get in touch with IFIS

© International Food Information Service (IFIS Publishing) operating as IFIS – All Rights Reserved     |     Charity Reg. No. 1068176     |     Limited Company No. 3507902     |     Designed by Blend

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ROSA vs. conventional therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage

• Published: 21 August 2024
• Volume 18 , article number  326 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Chuan-long He 1 ,
• Wei Li 2 &
• Xiao-ping Tang 1  

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative and short-term results of the Robot of Stereotactic Assistance (ROSA) compared to traditional approaches in individuals with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We will perform a comprehensive computerized search of PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and Google Scholar to identify relevant literature on ROSA vs. conventional therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage, covering publications from the inception of each database until July 2024. This study will include both English and Chinese language studies. Literature screening will adhere strictly to inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I tool is utilized for evaluating bias risk in non-RCTs. Analysis of the data from the studies included will be conducted with Review Manager 5.4.1. The final analysis included 7 retrospective cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled study, involving a total of 844 patients. Among these, 433 patients underwent ROSA, while 411 received conventional treatment (conservative treatment, conventional craniotomy, or stereotactic frame-assisted surgery). Compared to conventional therapy, patients treated with ROSA showed improvements in operative time, postoperative rebleeding, postoperative extubation time, and intracranial infection. Nonetheless, there was no notable contrast in mortality or central hyperthermia outcomes between the two treatments. ROSA is a safe and viable option for treating patients with cerebral hemorrhage, showing significant advantages in terms of surgery duration, postoperative rebleeding, time to remove the breathing tube, and intracranial infection compared to conservative treatment, traditional craniotomy, or stereotactic surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Medical Imaging

Data availability

The study contains the original contributions discussed in the article. For further questions, reach out to the respective author/s directly. No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Randomized controlled trials

Newcastle–Ottawa Scale

Confidence intervals

Odds ratios

Weighted mean difference

Standard deviation

Not available

Operative time

Robot of Stereotactic Assistance

• Intracerebral hemorrhage

Conventional craniotomy

Glasgow Coma Scale

Barthel Index

Glasgow Outcome Scale

Karnofsky Performance Status

Modified Rankin Scale

Blacquiere D, Demchuk AM, Al-Hazzaa M et al (2015) Intracerebral Hematoma morphologic appearance on noncontrast computed tomography predicts significant hematoma expansion. Stroke 46(11):3111–3116. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010566

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ikram MA, Wieberdink RG, Koudstaal PJ (2012) International epidemiology of intracerebral hemorrhage. Curr Atheroscler Rep 14(4):300–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-012-0252-1

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Russell MW, Boulanger L, Joshi AV et al (2006) The economic burden of intracerebral hemorrhage: evidence from managed care. Manag Care Interface. 19(6):24–28

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hemphill JC, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS et al (2015) Guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association. Stroke 46(7):2032–2060. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000069

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brouwers HB, Goldstein JN (2012) Therapeutic strategies in acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurotherapeutics 9(1):87–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-011-0091-8

Newell DW, Shah MM, Wilcox R et al (2011) Minimally invasive evacuation of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage using sonothrombolysis. J Neurosurg 115(3):592–601. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.5.JNS10505

Nagasaka T, Tsugeno M, Ikeda H et al (2011) Early recovery and better evacuation rate in neuro endoscopic surgery for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage using a multifunctional cannula: preliminary study in comparison with craniotomy. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 20(3):208–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2009.11.021

Vespa P, McArthur D, Miller C et al (2005) Frameless stereotactic aspiration and thrombolysis of deep intracerebral hemorrhage is associated with reduction of hemorrhage volume and neurological improvement. Neurocrit Care 2(3):274–281. https://doi.org/10.1385/NCC:2:3:274

Wang GQ, Li SQ, Huang YH et al (2014) Can minimally invasive puncture and drainage for hypertensive spontaneous Basal Ganglia intracerebral hemorrhage improve patient outcome: a prospective non-randomized comparative study. Mil Med Res 1:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2054-9369-1-10

Alan N, Patel A, Abou-Al-Shaar H et al (2021) Intraparenchymal hematoma and intraventricular catheter placement using robotic stereotactic assistance (ROSA): A single center preliminary experience. J Clin Neurosci 91:391–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2021.04.006

Tang X, Liu J, Zhang X et al (2018) A comparative study of different surgical treatment of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Anhui Med Pharmaceut J 22(5):843–847

Google Scholar  

Sun F, Yao H, Bao X et al (2022) The efficacy and safety of HoLEP for benign prostatic hyperplasia with large volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Mens Health 16(4):155798832211132. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883221113203

Article   Google Scholar  

Wan X, Wang W, Liu J et al (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135

Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N et al (2006) The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 333(7568):597–600. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597

Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M (2000) Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 53(11):1119–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0

Bao D, Ni S, Chang B et al (2024) Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery for brainstem hemorrhage: A case-control study. Heliyon 10(4):e25912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25912

Han W, Xie A, Chen T et al (2024) Efficacy of robot-assisted minimally invasive stereotactic puncture therapy for supratentorial hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Brain and Behavior 14(2):e3402. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.3402

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bin Li (2017) Efficacy of ROSA adjuvant therapy for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Chinese Community Doctors 33(31):41–42

Tang Z, Huang W, Chen Q et al (2024) Curative effect analysis of robot-assisted drainage surgery in treatment of spontaneous hypertensive brainstem hemorrhage. Front Neurol 15:1352949. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1352949

Wang Y, Jin H, Gong S et al (2019) Efficacy analysis of robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery for small-volume spontaneous thalamic hemorrhage. World Neurosurgery 131:e543–e549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.224

Xu F, Tao Y, Sun X et al (2017) Comparative analysis of robot of stereotactic assistant system and traditional infratentorial craniotomy for treatment of cerebellar hemorrhage. Chin J Minim Invasive Neurosurg 22(2):57–59

Liang L, Li X, Dong H et al (2022) A comparative study on the efficacy of robot of stereotactic assistant and frame-assisted stereotactic drilling, drainage for intracerebral hematoma in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage. Pak J Med Sci 38(7):1796–1801. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.7.5481

Zazulia AR, Diringer MN, Derdeyn CP et al (1999) Progression of mass effect after intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 30(6):1167–1173. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.30.6.1167

Xi G, Keep RF, Hoff JT (2006) Mechanisms of brain injury after intracerebral hemorrhage. Lancet Neurol 5(1):53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70283-0

Keep RF, Xi G, Hua Y et al (2005) The deleterious or beneficial effects of different agents in intracerebral hemorrhage: think big, think small, or is hematoma size important? Stroke 36(7):1594–1596. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000170701.41507.e1

Han WY, Tao YQ, Xu F et al (2017) The short- and long-term efficacy analysis of stereotactic surgery combined external ventricular drainage in the treatment of the secondary intraventricular hemorrhage. Brain Behav 7(12):e00864. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.864

Le CS, di Hao X, Li JW et al (2019) CD200Fc improves neurological function by protecting the blood-brain barrier after intracerebral hemorrhage. Cell Transplant 28(9–10):1321–1328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963689719857655

Alan N, Lee P, Ozpinar A et al (2017) Robotic Stereotactic Assistance (ROSA) utilization for minimally invasive placement of intraparenchymal hematoma and intraventricular catheters. World Neurosurg 108:996.e7-996.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.027

Vadera S, Chan A, Lo T et al (2017) Frameless stereotactic robot-assisted subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation: case report. World Neurosurg 97:762.e11-762.e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2015.11.009

Kim H, Edwards NJ, Choi HA et al (2016) Treatment strategies to attenuate perihematomal edema in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. World Neurosurg 94:32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.06.093

Gebel JM, Jauch EC, Brott TG et al (2002) Natural history of perihematomal edema in patients with hyperacute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 33(11):2631–2635. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000035284.12699.84

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors disclosed no relevant relationships.

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Neurosurgery, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, 637000, China

Li Luo, Chuan-long He & Xiao-ping Tang

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, 637000, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Each author contributed to the study’s conceptualization and design. LL and HCL handled data collection and analysis. LW processed the data and images. LL drafted the initial manuscript, which TXP critically reviewed and revised to ensure significant intellectual content. Each writer gave input on previous versions and endorsed the final draft of the document.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-ping Tang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests. The writers affirm that they possess no conflicting interests.

Approval of ethics and agreement to participate. Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Luo, L., He, Cl., Li, W. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of ROSA vs. conventional therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage. J Robotic Surg 18 , 326 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02074-7

Download citation

Received : 20 July 2024

Accepted : 31 July 2024

Published : 21 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02074-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Meta-analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research