Navigating the Review Jungle: Review Types and Review Families

Literature reviews can take many different forms.? Trying to make sense of them seems like navigating in the jungle. ?So let′s try to provide some directions.?

Commonalities

In general, all review research shares the use of prior data as the common defining feature.? The notion of “review research” aims to capture the common ground: “a class of research inquiries that employ scientific methods to analyze and synthesize prior research to develop new knowledge for academia, practice and policy-making” (see Kunisch et al. 2023a, p. 11). ?Thus: "Like other forms of research, review research seeks to make an original knowledge contribution. This objective distinguishes review research from literature reviews that are not stand-alone research projects (e.g., in introductions to Ph.D. theses, empirical papers, or research grant proposals). Notably, the role of prior research and knowledge as the data is the key distinguishing feature of review research, which makes this type of research distinct from quantitative research, qualitative research, and conceptual research. Our definition recognizes that review research comprises a diverse range of research methods that can be rooted in different epistemological and ontological traditions. This means that there is no single set of criteria to assess their quality."

Differences

As already indicated above, reviews can differ substantially in many different ways.? Several attempts to categorize the properties and identify typologies exists (for a summary, see Sutton et al. (2019), p. 204). ?

For example, Grant and Booth (2009, pp. 94-95) put forward a typology of 14 review types together with four core dimensions of their methods (search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis). Their list included the following: 1) critical review, 2) literature review, 3) mapping review/systematic map, 4) meta-analysis, 5) mixed studies review/mixed methods review, 6) overview, 7) qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis, 8) rapid review, 9) scoping review, 10) state-of-the-art review, 11) systematic review, 12) systematic search and review, 13) systematized review, and 14) umbrella review.

For another example, Paré et al. (2015, p. 186) proposed nine review types. They developed their list based on the properties of existing reviews along seven core dimensions (the overarching goal, scope of questions, search strategy, nature of primary sources, explicit study selection, quality appraisal, methods for synthesizing/analyzing findings). Their list contains the following review types: 1) narrative review, 2) descriptive review, 3) scoping/mapping review, 4) meta-analysis, 5) qualitative systematic review, 6) umbrella review, 7) theoretical review, 8) realist review, and 9) critical review.

Sutton et al. (2019) identified a total 48 distinct review types based on an analysis of existing review typologies. They provided definitions for each of the types (see table 3 on pp. 206-210).

Notably, they proposed that these review types could be categorised into seven broad review ‘families’:

1. Traditional review family: “Generally, this review family uses a purposive sampling approach, although occasionally the influence of systematic reviews now requires that traditional reviews, such as the narrative review, aim to be comprehensive in methods and reach. […]” (p. 205). It contains the following review types: critical review, integrative review, narrative review, state-of-the-art review, and narrative summary.
2. Systematic review family:?“[...] all review types in the systematic review family employ a comprehensive search approach as a defining feature. […]” (p. 210). This family includes the following types: systematic review, meta-analysis, comparative effectiveness review, diagnostic systematic review, network meta-analysis, prognostic review, among others.
3. Review of review family: “The review of review family is unique in that it focuses on one study type – prioritising systematic reviews or evidence syntheses rather than primary studies. […]” (p. 211). Types in this family are umbrella reviews and reviews of reviews.
4. Rapid review family: “… the methodology has progressed to a point where reviews may be grouped according to how they have abbreviated or otherwise deviated from conventional systematic review methods, locating them within one of the specific types below […]” (p. 211). Types include the following: rapid review, rapid evidence assessment, and rapid realist review.
5. Qualitative review family: “[…] the richness of qualitative research traditions and the diverse positions adopted by qualitative researchers have resulted in a rapid proliferation, and potentially bewildering variety, of review types […]” (p. 212). These reviews are characterized by “a generic process of reviewing qualitative studies (e.g. qualitative meta-synthesis or qualitative evidence synthesis); relate to the specific synthesis method used (e.g. thematic synthesis or framework synthesis); or, perhaps most commonly, attribute the synthesis process to the entire review output (e.g. a meta-ethnography or a critical interpretive synthesis)“ (p. 212).? There are many different types including: qualitative evidence synthesis, qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis, qualitative meta-synthesis, qualitative research synthesis, framework synthesis / best-fit framework synthesis, meta-aggregation, meta-ethnography, meta-interpretation, meta-narrative review, meta-study, meta-summary and thematic synthesis.
6. Mixed method review family: “Mixed methods reviews can be identified as reviews that incorporate mixed methods primary studies or, more commonly, as reviews that seek to integrate mixed (quantitative and qualitative) data […]” (p. 213). Types include, among others, the following: mixed methods synthesis, narrative synthesis, meta-narrative review, Bayesian meta-analysis, critical interpretive synthesis and realist synthesis / realist review.
7. Purpose specific review family: “The purpose specific review family is the most difficult to characterise largely because of the heterogeneity of review types and methods. All review types should be selected appropriately according to purpose; however, by ‘purpose-specific’ we imply that the degree of tailoring required to meet a specific single purpose is such that it makes it more challenging to adapt the review type for generic use beyond that purpose […] (p. 213). Specific types include the following: scoping review, mapping review, systematised review, concept synthesis, expert opinion / policy review, technology assessment review, methodological review, systematic search and review.

The categories and groups of them demonstrate the diversity in the review jungle. Still, I hope that the post help create a bit more clarity about the various review types.?

References

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Kunisch, S., Denyer, D., Bartunek, J. M., Menz, M., & Cardinal, L. B. (2023). Review research as scientific inquiry. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 3-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221127292

Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183-199. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276 ??