Can be separate or done together.
SR: The way in which you gather and select your data (studies) is strategic and unbiased as possible.
Meta: Combining different data from different studies to increase population.
Original content by Hanna Schmillen, available here. Used with permission.
When people say the word "systematic review" there are two things they could mean. "Systematic Review" is an umbrella term for systematically-designed studies that review the evidence on a particular topic. A systematic review is also a type of systematically-designed study that reviews the evidence on a particular topic. Depending on your question and resources, you may actually perform a meta-analysis, scoping review, rapid review, or a mapping review.
To better determine what type of review is right for your study, take a look through the table below detailing the 7 most common types of systematic reviews.
If none of those seem quite right for your study, there are 7 additional types of reviews.
Reproduced from: Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91‐108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
PMID: 19490148
| Label | Description | Search | Appraisal | Synthesis | Analysis |
| Literature Review | Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Typically narrative | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. |
| Meta-Analysis | Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity |
| Rapid Review | Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research | Completeness of searching determined by time constraints | Time-limited formal quality assessment | Typically narrative and tabular | Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature |
| Scoping Review | Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research progress | No formal quality assessment | Typically tabular with some narrative commentary | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. |
| Systematic Review | Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research |
| Systematized Review | Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; uncertainty around findings; limitations of methodology |
| Umbrella Review | Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results | Identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies | Quality assessment of studies within component reviews and/or of reviews themselves | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; recommendations for future research |
