Module 1 Learning Objectives

Recognize the different types of reviews within the family of synthesis reviews
Identify relevant reporting guidelines as required by review type
Explain what drives selection of review type

What is a Synthesis Review?

A synthesis review is a research method that brings together all the relevant information on a topic to answer a specific question.

The type of review that you opt to complete should be driven primarily by your research question, not the methodology you prefer.

There are many types of synthesis reviews, and some of the most common ones are listed below. Click on any review type heading in the list to read its description, key guidelines, and example questions.

Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews focus on a specific research question, usually to see how well a treatment, policy, or program works. Because they use a strict scientific process, anyone following the exact same steps should get the exact same results.

To do this, researchers use a search strategy so detailed and clear that it acts like a recipe. They choose which studies to include by using a set list of strict crtieria.

Ultimately, a systematic review checks the quality of all the evidence and combines it to show the big picture. It often—but not always—includes a statistical analysis called a meta-analysis.

Key methodological guidance:

Reporting guidelines:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

Examples of a Systematic Review style question:

How effective is hormone-replacement therapy on premenopausal patients experiencing rheumatoid arthritis?
What are the most effective psychosocial interventions for management of mental health conditions in patients living with cardiovascular disease in LMICs?
How effective are hospital-based strategies for improving childhood immunization coverage?

Scoping Reviews

Compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews take a broader look at a topic. Their main goal is to map out what is already known to spot key themes, patterns, and gaps in the existing research.

Scoping reviews were once used mainly as a first step before doing a systematic review, but today they stand on their own. Because they follow a clear scientific process, researchers use a search strategy so detailed that it acts like a recipe - allowing anyone to follow the steps and get the same results.

Studies are picked using a strict criteria. Researchers then group the findings by topic and make comparisons to highlight areas where more research is needed. Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews rarely judge the quality of the individual studies.

Key methodological guidance:

JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Chapter 10)
Arksey and O'Malley (2005), "Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework"
Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien (2010), "Scoping studies: advancing the methodology"

Reporting guidelines:

PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)

Examples of a Scoping Review style question:

What is the clinical relationship between hormone levels and incidence of rheumatoid arthritis in premenopausal patients?
What are the necessary competencies for nurses working with geriatric patients?
How do adolescents experience racism in health services?
What community-based programs exist to promote physical activity among older immigrant populations?

Umbrella Reviews

Also known as a "review of reviews," an umbrella review works much like a systematic review. Researchers search thoroughly, use strict rules to select studies, and carefully judge the quality of each study. The key difference is that an umbrella review uses only other systematic reviews as its sources of information.

By combining multiple systematic reviews, this method provides a big-picture view of a topic. Because it offers such high-quality evidence, doctors and experts frequently use umbrella reviews to create clinical practice guidelines.

Key methodological guidance:

JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Chapter 9)

Reporting guidelines:

(Unofficial) PRIOR Statement

Examples of an Umbrella Review style question:

What is the impact of vitamin C supplementation on upper respiratory tract infections?
Do wearable devices have an impact on improved physical activity and reduction in sedentary behavior in older adults?
What are the barriers and facilitators to patient navigation through the cancer care continuum?

Integrative Reviews

This type of review allows researchers to mix different kinds of studies, including both hands-on experiments and observational research. It is especially popular in nursing research.

Researchers use these reviews to define key ideas, examine theories, and figure out the best ways to conduct studies. Just like other major reviews, the search process is thorough and step-by-step, using a clear set of rules to choose which studies to include.

Key methodological guidance:

Reporting guidelines:

N/A

Examples of an integrative review question:

What workplace factors influence emergency room nurses’ experiences of work-related burnout?
What do nurses experience in communication when assisting with robotic surgery?
What are the patient-reported outcome measures for the assessment of stress in neurological patients?

Rapid Reviews

A rapid review is a shorter, faster version of a systematic review. To save time, researchers simplify or skip some of the usual steps.

These reviews are popular with healthcare leaders and decision-makers who need reliable information quickly.

To speed up the process, researchers might use a few "shortcuts," such as focusing on a very narrow question, searching fewer databases, or doing a simpler quality check on the studies. Any steps that are shortened or skipped must be clearly explained so the reader knows exactly how the review was done and what limitations may be present.

Key methodological guidance:

Reporting guidelines:

N/A, but PRISMA-RR in development

Examples of a rapid review question:

How effective are disposable masks for preventing COVID-19 spread among long-term care residents?
What are the implications of ChatGPT in health sciences education?

Further Information

Check out the following articles for additional information on types of synthesis reviews:

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