Review Types and Their Strengths and Weaknesses
Type Description
Generic term: published materials that provide
examination of recent or current literature. Can
Literature Review
cover wide range of subjects at various levels of
completeness and comprehensiveness.
Generic term: summary of the literature that
Overview attempts to survey the literature and describe its
characteristics.
Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively
researched literature and critically evaluated its
Critical Review quality. Goes beyond mere description to include
degree of analysis and conceptual innovation.
Typically results in hypothesis or model.
Map out and categorize existing literature from
Mapping review/
which to commission further reviews and/or primary
systematic map
research by identifying gaps in research literature.
Technique that statistically combines the results of
Meta-analysis quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect
of the results.
Refers to any combination of methods where one
significant component is a literature review (usually
Mixed studies review/ systematic). Within a review context it refers to a
mixed methods review combination of review approaches from example
combining quantitative with qualitative research or
outcomes with process studies.
Method for integrating or comparing the findings
Qualitative systematic
from qualitative studies. It looks for 'themes' or
review/ qualitative
'constructs' that lie in or across individual qualitative elements of a study.
evidence synthesis
studies.
Strengths Weaknesses
Brings together what has been There is not set method to make
accomplished without repetition and sure all the literature on a topic
identifying gaps or omission all within a was considered. The chances of
summation. the review being biased increases
Lack of systematic searching
Allows for board summations and great
methods and evaluation. Is often
for those who are new to the topic or
overused or used as a synonym
subject.
for other types of reviews.
Does not require the methods of
searching, synthesis, or analysis of
Used to look at the entire body of work
literature be explicitly stated. The
on a topic. Can be used to introduce a
main goal it so identify all the
idea, resolve competing theories, or
literature on the topic to start the
call for testing on topic.
evaluation of a topic and is not the
finial evaluation product.
This can help determine if all the
literature needs to consider to make an
Can oversimplify studies being
informed decision on a topic, or if a
looked at meaning the findings and
subset can be reviewed due to
and methods can be highly varied.
theoretical perspective, population
group, or setting of the study.
Incorporates small or inconclusive Is only as good as the studies that
studies into other studies to aid in are used to create it. Some argue
drawing conclusions that they that the combination of studies is
otherwise are unable to do. comparing apples and oranges.
Is dependent upon the searcher to
demonstrate value added that the
Has the potential to give a whole
variety of methods and findings the
picture view that single method review
studies give. There is also difficulty
can give.
in evaluating the different
qualitative and quantitative results.
There are differing opinions about
Is a strong addition to the quantitative
when specific methods are
necessary for the review.
 Review Types and Their Strengths and Weaknesses
Type Description Strengths Weaknesses
Is designed to done quickly by using
Assessment of what is already known about a The shortened time for quality
less sophisticated search strategies,
policy or practice issue, by using systematic review assessment increases the risk of
Rapid Review looking at other reviews, not including
methods to search and critically appraise existing using biased or poor quality
grey matter, and doing limited quality
research studies.
assessments.
Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope
Are used to determine if a full Are not a financial product and
of available research literature. Aims to identify
Scoping Review systematic review will be necessary to have run a higher risk of being
nature and extent of research evidence (usually
form a conclusion. biased.
including ongoing research)
Tend to address more current matters in contrast to Gives a reader new to a topic or
By focusing on a time constraint of
other combined retrospective and current someone looking for new research
State-of-the-art review being current the review can give a
approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue opportunities one place to read about
skewed view of the field.
or point out area for further research. current matters.
Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and
Seeks to include all knowledge on a Is restrictive to focusing a certain
Systematic review synthesis research evidence, often adhering to
topic method used in studies.
guidelines on the conduct of a review.
Combines strength of critical review with a
Without the stated inclusion-
Systematic research and comprehensive search process. Typically
Includes multiple types of studies exclusion criteria the choosing
review addresses broad questions to produce 'best
method can be subjective.
evidence synthesis'
Attempt to include elements of systematic review
Thej searching stage is well defined The quality assessment and the
process while stopping short of systematic review.
Systematized review and can help speed up the process of synthesis are usually less defined,
Typically conducted as postgraduate student
the review. this can lead to bias.
assignment.
Specifically refers to review compiling evidence
Compiles the results of multiple
from multiple views into one accessible and usable
reviews to answer a specific question. Is dependent upon there already
document. Focuses on broad condition or problem
Umbrella review Creates a balance between big picture being a narrower component
for which there are competing interventions and
reviews and reviews that are reviews.
highlights reviews that address these interventions
fragmented because of their specificity.
and their results.
Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online
Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.