About Systematic Reviews
The Difference Between Narrative Review and Systematic Review
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 .
- 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) . 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 . They have now become the gold standard in evidence-based medicine .
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.