A literature review is a type of writing that explores, analyses and synthesizes current literature around a particular topic or area of study. It can be included as part of a broader submission such as a research thesis or a report, or it may be a standalone essay assignment. It considers related texts together, comparing and contrasting them with each other.
Note that a literature review is not simply a summary of articles and sources, but rather a well-woven review of related literature. It looks for aspects of consensus and explores areas of academic disagreement within the scope of the theme or area being addressed by the review.
A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias, in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making. (See Section 1.2 in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions).
Are systematic reviews the best study design for you?
Try the quiz below to find out
Here is a guide to some of the literature review types available and their key characteristics.
| Systematic Review | Integrative Review | Scoping Review | Literature Review | |
| Purpose & Features |
To evaluate all the best quality evidence on a topic to answer a particular research question. Rigorous with explicit and reproducible methodology. Inclusion criteria, search strategies and analysis details are included. |
Gather and synthesize both empirical and theoretical evidence relevant to a clearly defined problem. States inclusion criteria, search strategy, extraction, appraisal and analysis plan. |
Assess the size and scope of existing literature on a topic, generally conducted when literature is diverse in type. Does not aim to answer a particular question. Rigorous with explicit and reproducible methodology. Inclusion criteria, search strategies and methods are included. |
Broad, selective view of the literature on a topic. Analysis may be chronological, conceptual or thematic. Usually lacks inclusion criteria and search strategies. Not comprehensive and vulnerable to bias. |
| Research Question |
Specific |
Directly linked to the identified problem, where there is a knowledge gap |
May be broad |
Not specific |
| Literature types included |
Well-defined; usually primary research. |
Empirical and theoretical types. |
All types depending on the research question. |
High-quality peer-reviewed articles, but also may include conference papers, news or other credible sources. |
|
Data Extraction |
Always | Varies depending on objectives | Varies depending on objectives | Not required |
| Resources | More than 2 people. 12 - 18+ months. |
Flexible | Flexible | Flexible |
Cochrane systematic review:
Kumar, A., Delbaere, K., Zijlstra, G. A. R., Carpenter, H., Iliffe, S., Masud, T., Skelton, D., Morris, R., & Kenick, D. (2014). Exercise for reducing fear of falling in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009848.pub2
Qualitative systematic review:
Mytton, J., Ingram, J., Manns, S., & Thomas, J. (2014). Facilitators and Barriers to Engagement in Parenting Programs: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Health Education & Behavior, 41(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198113485755
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic review:
Ellwood, L., Torun, G., Bahar, Z., & Fernandez, R. (2019). Effects of flavonoid-rich fruits on hypertension in adults: A systematic review. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, 17, 2075-2105. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00050
Mixed methods systematic review:
Kinsella, N., Stattin, P., Cahill, D., Brown, C., Bill-Axelson, A., Bratt, O., Carlsson, S., & Van Hemelrijck, M. (2018). Factors influencing men’s choice of and adherence to active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: A mixed-method systematic review. European Urology, 74(3), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.026
|
Further reading Dhollande S., Taylor A., Meyer S., & Scott M. (2021) Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907 Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. https://www.nccmt.ca/tools/rapid-review-guidebook Grant, M.J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Mak S, Thomas A. (2022). Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review. Journal of Graduate Medical Education,14(5), 565-567. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00621.1 Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143–143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x Toronto, C., & Remington, R. (2020). A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1
|
Copyright © 2025 The University of Notre Dame Australia | CRICOS Provider Code: 01032F | TEQSA PRV12170 | RTO Code 0064
