Skip to Main Content

Evidence Synthesis

Which review is that? A guide to review types

 

This quick reference tool provides information on a wide range of literature review types that are available for research synthesis for publication and research purposes.

 

Source https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

Common Types of Evidence Syntheses

Below is a comparison of common types of evidence syntheses, their purposes, and typical use cases.

Type Purpose Typical Use Case
Systematic Review Answer a focused research question using predefined criteria and comprehensive literature searches. “Is a specific drug effective for treating hypertension in adults?”
Meta-analysis Statistically combine results from multiple studies to produce a pooled estimate of effect. Combining data from multiple RCTs on a vaccine’s efficacy.
Scoping Review Map the existing literature on a topic to identify key concepts, evidence types, and gaps. “What research exists on telehealth use in primary care?”
Rapid Review Streamline and expedite a systematic review for timely decision-making. Summarizing current evidence for policy decisions during a public health crisis.
Narrative Review Provide a descriptive, often expert-based summary of literature without systematic methodology. Overview of trends in global health education.
Umbrella Review Synthesize results from multiple systematic reviews into a single accessible format. Summarizing all systematic reviews on dietary supplements and cardiovascular outcomes.
Integrative Review Combine data from theoretical and empirical literature (quantitative and qualitative). Exploring various models of patient-centered care.
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Interpret and integrate findings from qualitative studies. Understanding patient experiences with chronic pain.
Mixed Methods Review Combine quantitative and qualitative evidence synthesis. Evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention and understanding user satisfaction.
Evidence Map Visually or structurally summarize existing research to show density or gaps. Identifying which clinical conditions have the most or least RCTs.
Realist Review Explain how and why complex interventions work (or don't) in specific contexts. Investigating how community health programs succeed in different populations.
Evidence Gap Map Systematically display areas with abundant evidence vs. areas lacking research. Highlighting evidence gaps in adolescent mental health care.

 

Notes

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered gold standards for evidence-based practice.

  • Scoping reviews are best for exploratory questions, especially in emerging or under-researched fields.

  • Selecting a review type will depend on the question, purpose, timeline, and resources available.

 For further guidance, refer to: