Systematic reviews come in many forms, each designed to answer specific types of research questions. The distinctions between them are shaped primarily by three key factors: (1) the type of studies they include, (2) their purpose or the kind of questions they aim to answer, and (3) the methodological approach or review strategy—which gives rise to related review types like scoping reviews, rapid reviews, and umbrella reviews. Understanding these differences is crucial for researchers aiming to select or conduct the right kind of review for their objectives.
I. Study Types: Qualitative vs Quantitative vs Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews
1. Qualitative Systematic Reviews
Qualitative systematic reviews (sometimes called qualitative evidence syntheses or meta-syntheses) include only qualitative studies—such as those based on interviews, focus groups, ethnographies, or case studies. Rather than quantifying data, these reviews explore people's experiences, perceptions, beliefs, and social contexts.
They are essential in fields like healthcare, education, and social sciences, where understanding the how and why of phenomena matters. For example, a qualitative review might synthesize studies exploring patients’ lived experiences with chronic pain. These reviews offer nuanced insights that are critical for designing patient-centered interventions or informing policy.
2. Quantitative Systematic Reviews
Quantitative reviews, on the other hand, include only quantitative studies—such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, or cross-sectional surveys. They often aim to determine the effectiveness, accuracy, or associations of interventions or exposures.
A key feature is the use of statistical synthesis methods like meta-analysis, where data from multiple studies are pooled to estimate overall effects or relationships. For example, a meta-analysis of RCTs assessing the impact of a drug on blood pressure reduction would fall under this category.
3. Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews
Mixed methods reviews combine both qualitative and quantitative studies in a single synthesis. They are especially useful when the research question requires both contextual understanding and statistical evidence.
For example, a review might quantify the effectiveness of a mental health intervention (quantitative) while also exploring patients' experiences with the intervention (qualitative). These reviews offer a holistic picture and are increasingly common in complex areas like public health and implementation research.
II. Purpose: Systematic Reviews by Objective
1. Intervention Systematic Reviews
These reviews assess the effectiveness of interventions—commonly using RCTs. They answer questions like Does drug A reduce mortality in patients with disease B? These are the most common type of systematic review and often include meta-analyses.
Example: A Cochrane review evaluating the impact of school-based nutrition programs on childhood obesity.
2. Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews
These reviews evaluate how well a diagnostic test correctly identifies a condition. They often include cross-sectional studies and report metrics like sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios.
Example: A review examining the accuracy of rapid antigen tests in detecting COVID-19.
3. Prognostic Systematic Reviews
These reviews investigate predictive factors—i.e., how certain variables influence outcomes over time. They often include cohort studies and are used in clinical decision-making, particularly in predicting disease progression or risk.
Example: A review studying the prognostic value of tumor markers in cancer survival rates.
4. Etiology and Risk Reviews
These assess the causal or associative relationship between exposures and outcomes, commonly through cohort or case-control studies.
Example: A systematic review examining whether air pollution increases the risk of childhood asthma.
5. Prevalence and Incidence Reviews
These reviews estimate how common a condition or phenomenon is in a population. They synthesize data from cross-sectional studies or registries.
Example: A review estimating the global prevalence of depression in adolescents.
6. Methodological Systematic Reviews
These evaluate or compare research methods, instruments, or reporting practices. For instance, reviewing how often randomized trials adequately describe their randomization process.
III. Review Strategy: Systematic Reviews vs. Related Review Types
This third factor relates to how the review is conducted—its methodological breadth, depth, and speed. It gives rise to review types that are closely related to systematic reviews, though not always categorized strictly as such. These are often referred to as "cousins" of systematic reviews because they employ similar principles but diverge in scope, depth, or purpose.
1. Scoping Reviews vs Systematic Reviews
Scoping reviews map the breadth and scope of literature on a topic, rather than answering a narrowly defined question. They are ideal for emerging fields or broad topics where the evidence is still fragmented or unclear.
Use when: You want to explore what is known, how much evidence exists, or how research has been conducted.
Example: A scoping review of digital health interventions for adolescents.
By contrast, systematic reviews aim to answer a specific question with predefined criteria and critical appraisal of included studies.
2. Rapid Reviews vs Systematic Reviews
Rapid reviews streamline or abbreviate the systematic review process to produce findings quickly—often for policy decisions or time-sensitive healthcare issues.
Use when: Time constraints require evidence within weeks or months.
Trade-offs: They may use fewer databases, limit quality appraisal, or use single reviewers, affecting comprehensiveness.
Example: A rapid review for decision-makers during a disease outbreak.
In contrast, systematic reviews are more rigorous and comprehensive but take longer to complete.
3. Umbrella Reviews vs Systematic Reviews
Umbrella reviews (also called overviews of reviews) synthesize multiple systematic reviews rather than primary studies.
Use when: There are several systematic reviews on related interventions or outcomes, and you want a higher-level synthesis.
Example: An umbrella review of systematic reviews on exercise interventions for chronic pain.
Systematic reviews synthesize primary studies, while umbrella reviews work one level higher.
4. Critical Reviews vs Systematic Reviews
Critical reviews are more narrative and conceptual, offering a critical analysis and interpretation of literature rather than a structured synthesis.
Use when: The goal is to develop new theoretical frameworks or question existing assumptions.
Example: A critical review exploring the philosophical foundations of patient-centered care.
Unlike systematic reviews, they are not necessarily replicable or exhaustive in their search methods.
5. Narrative Reviews vs Systematic Reviews
Narrative reviews provide a broad overview of a topic, often written by experts. They may not follow systematic methods and can be subjective or selective.
Use when: Summarizing well-established topics or providing background for research.
Example: A narrative review of diabetes management strategies.
Systematic reviews, by contrast, minimize bias through structured, transparent, and replicable methods.
Conclusion
The type of systematic review—or its close alternative—you choose depends on the type of studies available, the purpose of your review, and the methodological approach required. Whether it's a rigorous intervention review, a broad scoping review, or a focused diagnostic review, each serves a distinct role in evidence synthesis. Understanding these distinctions helps researchers choose the most appropriate strategy to answer their research question effectively and transparently.
You may also like: