Review Types

Evidence Based Practice or Evidence Based Medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.

Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence Based Medicine: What It Is And What It Isn’t: It’s About Integrating Individual Clinical Expertise And The Best External Evidence. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 1996;312(7023):71-72.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 

Research integrity is conducting and communicating scientific research in an honest and responsible way that adheres to professional standards.

Armond ACV, Cobey KD, Moher D. Research Integrity definitions and challenges. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2024;171. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111367

A narrative review, or literature review synthesizes recent or current literature on a specific topic. This can involve one or multiple databases.

Team

No team is required for a narrative review.

Protocols

There are not required protocols for a narrative review.

Bianca K. A narrative review of breastmilk expression. Breastfeeding Review. 2025;33(2):14-24. Accessed October 6, 2025. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=0b34bcff-8658-3e1c-bb…

Houghtaling B, Short E, Shanks CB, et al. Implementation of Food is Medicine Programs in Healthcare Settings: A Narrative Review. Journal of general internal medicine. 2024;39(14):2797-2805. doi:10.1007/s11606-024-08768-w

Prasad A, Goswamy R, Bresnahan R. The Past, Present, and Future of Restrictive Covenants in Medicine in the United States : A Narrative Review. Annals of internal medicine. 2025;178(1):70-74. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-24-01670

A rapid review is a faster version of a systematic review. It assesses what is already known about a policy or practice by searching and critically appraising existing research, but it streamlines the process to produce evidence for stakeholders more quickly. Completeness of the searching is determined by time constraints.

Devane D, Hamel C, Gartlehner G, et al. Key concepts in rapid reviews: an overview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2024;175. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111518

Teams

Teams are not required for a rapid review.

Protocols

Protocols are recommended. 

Rapid Reviews are primarily by request for timely evidence for decision-making purposes including to address urgent and emergent healthcare issues and questions deemed high priority. 

Umbrella reviews are reviews of reviews. They are a response to the growing number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An umbrella synthesizes evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a broad topic.

Team

A team is not required.

Protocols

PRISMA-P reporting guidelines are a great resource for what to include in a protocol.

A scoping review is a type of knowledge synthesis that systematically and broadly maps what has been studied on a specific topic. It is not meant to provide a definitive answer but rather a reproducible search to show the scope, range and nature of the existing research. 

Key Features of a Scoping Review

1. Systematic and Flexible: Scoping reviews use a methodological, repeatable search strategy. If new or unexpected information is found, the review can be adjusted.
2. Broad focus: the research question is intentionally broad to explore the entire landscape of the topic.
3. Doesn't judge quality: Scoping reviews summarize without judgement the existing literature on a specific topic. Capture breadth not best evidence.
4. Informs future work: scoping reviews are often used to identify knowledge gaps and clarify concepts.

Teams

Scoping reviews require teams. Teams should include someone with content expertise and at least one individual with scoping review experience.

Protocols

JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Chapter on Scoping Reviews

PRISMA for Scoping Reviews

Cochrane on Scoping Reviews

1. Formulate a Research Question: A properly formulated research question guides and assists in establishing protocol, and inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2. Identify Relevant Studies
3. Select Studies to Be Included
4. Chart Data
5. Organize, Summarize, and Report

Resources for More Information:

Mak S, Thomas A. Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14(5):565-567. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-22-00621.1

Pollock D, Davies EL, Peters MDJ, et al. Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(4):2102-2113. doi:10.1111/jan.14743

Pollock D, Evans C, Menghao Jia R, et al. “How-to”: scoping review? Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2024;176:111572. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111572

A systematic review addresses a clinical question by analyzing research that fits certain explicitly-specified criteria. The criteria for inclusion is usually based on research from clinical trials and observational studies. Assessments are done based on stringent guidelines. These are considered one of the highest levels of evidence and mostly address diagnosis and treatment questions.

A meta-analysis is a quantitative technique that combines the findings from multiple, individual studies addressing a common research question. The goal is to produce a pooled estimate of an effect, which is often more precise and statistically powerful than that of any single contributing study.

Key functions:

• Increases statistical power and precision.
• Resolves conflicts among studies with inconsistent results.
• Provides a comprehensive overview of a research topic.

Relationship to systematic reviews:

A meta-analysis is the statistical component of a systematic review. A systematic review first follows a rigorous process to identify, select, and critically appraise all relevant research on a topic. If enough similar quantitative data is available, a meta-analysis can then be performed.