{"branchingScenario":{"content":[{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"

This tool is designed to help you decide if a major review project is right for your research and, if it is, which type of review would best fit your research question. Review types covered by this tool include narrative, critical, rapid, scoping, systematic, meta-analysis, and umbrella. <\/p>\n\n

The questions in this tool are adapted from the knowledge synthesis decision tool<\/a> from Library Services, Unity Health Toronto. The sections describing each review type are adapted from the knowledge syntheses: systematic & scoping reviews, and other review types<\/a> guide from Gerstein Science Information Centre at the University of Toronto <\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"0afcbde2-3e0f-4856-929c-2b92635f618d","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Choosing the right type of review"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"Start","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"subtitle":""},"contentBehaviour":"useBehavioural","nextContentId":1},{"type":{"library":"H5P.BranchingQuestion 1.0","params":{"branchingQuestion":{"alternatives":[{"nextContentId":2,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"Yes"},{"nextContentId":4,"feedback":{"title":"

Narrative & Critical Reviews<\/p>\n","subtitle":"

Consider a Narrative Review. Read this article to learn more about the value of narrative reviews<\/a>. If your research has an education or social work focus, you might consider a Critical Review <\/p>\n"},"text":"No"}],"question":"

Does your research require you to search multiple databases in a systematic way to find all the available evidence on a particular research topic? <\/p>\n"}},"subContentId":"a85be437-1f7f-461e-af69-3435b20a3e19","metadata":{"contentType":"Branching Question","license":"U","title":"Question 1"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"Learn about narrative and critical reviews","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"subtitle":""},"contentBehaviour":"enabled"},{"type":{"library":"H5P.BranchingQuestion 1.0","params":{"branchingQuestion":{"alternatives":[{"nextContentId":3,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"Yes"},{"nextContentId":13,"feedback":{"title":"

Not enough people<\/p>\n","subtitle":"

An evidence synthesis requires at least three people to screen references so that the risk of bias is minimized. If you are a student, talk to your supervisor about the possibility of finding other students to act as screeners on your project. Review the information about Narrative Reviews and see if that would be sufficient for your project. <\/p>\n\n

<\/p>\n"},"text":"No"}],"question":"

Does your research team include a minimum of three people? <\/p>\n"}},"subContentId":"44cbc4a9-a425-4d0d-a3f5-034cddbe957f","metadata":{"contentType":"Branching Question","license":"U","title":"Question 2"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"Learn more about Narrative Reviews","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"subtitle":""},"contentBehaviour":"enabled"},{"type":{"library":"H5P.BranchingQuestion 1.0","params":{"branchingQuestion":{"alternatives":[{"nextContentId":6,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"Yes"},{"nextContentId":5,"feedback":{"title":"

Not enough time<\/p>\n","subtitle":"

While there are many variables, such as the number of screeners and the amount of time dedicated to the project, the average time to complete a systematic or scoping review is 9-18 months. If you are trying to complete your research in one semester, consider a Narrative Review instead. <\/p>\n\n

If you are experienced with systematic review methodology and you are already very familiar with the literature on your topic, you could consider a Rapid Review <\/p>\n"},"text":"No"}],"question":"

Do you have 9-18 months to work on this review? <\/p>\n"}},"subContentId":"61645b40-1932-4e44-be75-365e8889c4bb","metadata":{"contentType":"Branching Question","license":"U","title":"Question 3"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"Learn more about narrative and rapid reviews","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"subtitle":""},"contentBehaviour":"enabled"},{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"

Narrative & Critical Reviews<\/h2>\n\n
Narrative Reviews<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n
Description<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Narrative Reviews are what we often think of as a regular literature review. A summary and analysis of existing literature is undertaken, but no details are usually shared about the search strategy used or the resources that were searched. Although, as Sukhera (2022) argues, these details can certainly be included. Narrative literature reviews are common in the introductory section of a primary research paper, or as student assignments. Some disciples have specific guidelines for narrative reviews, such as the critical reviews that are often seen in education and social work.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Evidence synthesis reviews, such as systematic and scoping reviews, are different because they follow a strict research methodology that requires the whole search and screening process to be clearly documented. If you want to learn more about other types of reviews, you can read this overview of review types.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Resources<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Guide to writing literature reviews<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Sukhera, J. (2022). Narrative reviews: Flexible, rigorous, and practical. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14 (4): 414\u2013417. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4300\/JGME-D-22-00480.1<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Critical Reviews<\/strong><\/h3>\n\nDescription<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
Critical Reviews are a form of narrative review that \u201cdraw on literature and theory from different domains\u2026to reenvision ways of interpreting a problem\u201d (Kahlke, et al., 2023). They are most commonly used in education and social work.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Resources<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
Kahlke, R., Lee, M., & Eva, K. (2023). Critical reviews in health professions education research. Journal of Graduate Medical Educucation,15 (2): 180\u2013185. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4300\/JGME-D-23-00154.1<\/a> <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"838b038e-da45-41d1-9638-a1008f495d33","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Narrative & Critical Reviews"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"title":"
The End<\/p>\n","subtitle":"
Link to an overview of review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n","image":{"path":"images\/image-6793f51a54cee.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720}},"contentBehaviour":"enabled","nextContentId":-1},{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"
Narrative and Rapid Reviews<\/h2>\n\n
Narrative reviews<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n
Description<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Narrative Reviews are what we often think of as a regular literature review. A summary and analysis of existing literature is undertaken, but no details are usually shared about the search strategy used or the resources that were searched. Although, as Sukhera (2022) argues, these details can certainly be included. Narrative literature reviews are common in the introductory section of a primary research paper, or as student assignments. Some disciples have specific guidelines for narrative reviews, such as the critical reviews that are often seen in education and social work.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Evidence synthesis reviews, such as systematic and scoping reviews, are different because they follow a strict research methodology that requires the whole search and screening process to be clearly documented. If you want to learn more about other types of reviews, you can read this overview of review types.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Resources<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Guide to writing literature reviews<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Sukhera, J. (2022). Narrative reviews: Flexible, rigorous, and practical. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14 (4): 414\u2013417. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4300\/JGME-D-22-00480.1<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Rapid Reviews<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n
Rapid reviews are systematic reviews that take several methodological shortcuts. Ideally, they are completed by teams with experience in systematic review methodology on topics of immediate relevance that require quick answers (such as during a pandemic). The methodological shortcuts that are taken, such as reducing the number of databases searched, or using single instead of double screening, must be clearly explained and the impact that they might have on bias in the results must be included as a limitation to the study.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Resources<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools - Rapid Review Guidebook<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Zarin, W. et al. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine 13, 224. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12916-015-0465-6<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"df27b207-1d45-4c6a-92ba-7e76ea508b03","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Narrative and Rapid Reviews"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"title":"
The End<\/p>\n","subtitle":"
Link to an overview of review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n","image":{"path":"images\/image-6785685e28afd.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720}},"contentBehaviour":"enabled","nextContentId":-1},{"type":{"library":"H5P.BranchingQuestion 1.0","params":{"branchingQuestion":{"alternatives":[{"nextContentId":7,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"RQ1: An exploratory research question that aims to map the evidence and identify gaps. For example, What interventions exist to address social integration and loneliness in long-term care homes and how have they been evaluated?"},{"nextContentId":8,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"RQ2: A specific question that is related to a stated intervention often for a specific population. For example, How effective is community-based rehabilitation following a hip fracture for adults with cognitive impairment?"},{"nextContentId":14,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"None of the above\/ I don't have a question yet"}],"question":"
Which example research question is the most similar to yours?<\/p>\n"}},"subContentId":"9dd37aaf-9cee-4c95-af1c-e6e044a4b4b7","metadata":{"contentType":"Branching Question","license":"U","title":"Question 4"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"subtitle":""},"contentBehaviour":"enabled"},{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"
Scoping Reviews<\/h2>\n\n
Description<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
Scoping reviews follow many of the same steps as a systematic review but are designed to answer a different type of question. As the name suggests, a scoping review is trying to reveal the scope of a topic. For example, a scoping review might look for answers to questions about the types of interventions that are used to treat a social or health concern.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Resources<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Chapter 10 \u2013 Scoping Reviews<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
PRISMA for Scoping Reviews<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"69ec9f8d-35b8-4fd3-80da-492eb6c3335a","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Scoping Review"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"title":"
The End<\/p>\n","subtitle":"
Link to an overview of review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n","image":{"path":"images\/image-678568ab601c1.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720}},"contentBehaviour":"enabled","nextContentId":-1},{"type":{"library":"H5P.BranchingQuestion 1.0","params":{"branchingQuestion":{"alternatives":[{"nextContentId":9,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"Yes"},{"nextContentId":10,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"No"},{"nextContentId":15,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"I don't know"}],"question":"
Have multiple systematic reviews already been published on this topic? <\/p>\n"}},"subContentId":"b27eb848-a847-40c2-ade6-bf3149831b29","metadata":{"contentType":"Branching Question","license":"U","title":"Question 5"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"Proceed","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"subtitle":""},"contentBehaviour":"useBehavioural"},{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"
Umbrella Reviews<\/h2>\n\n
Description<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
Also known as a review of reviews or an overview of reviews, an umbrella review is a review that only includes other systematic reviews. They are used when multiple systematic reviews on a topic already exist. They aim to synthesize this information and provide a description of the current state of knowledge on a specific topic.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Resources<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Chapter 9 \u2013 Umbrella Reviews<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Chapter V- Overviews of Reviews<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"81fb94b1-7656-4985-b348-1a0c7e564ccc","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Umbrella Review"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"title":"
The End<\/p>\n","subtitle":"
Link to an overview of review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n","image":{"path":"images\/image-678568f2b4e11.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720}},"contentBehaviour":"enabled","nextContentId":-1},{"type":{"library":"H5P.BranchingQuestion 1.0","params":{"branchingQuestion":{"alternatives":[{"nextContentId":11,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"Yes"},{"nextContentId":12,"feedback":{"title":"","subtitle":""},"text":"No"}],"question":"
Do you anticipate that the studies you find will be homogenous enough that they can be evaluated, synthesized and summarised using statistical methods? <\/p>\n"}},"subContentId":"c8f773bb-9171-4df4-9bd5-cc386099577b","metadata":{"contentType":"Branching Question","license":"U","title":"Question 6"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"Proceed","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"subtitle":""},"contentBehaviour":"useBehavioural"},{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"
Systematic review and meta analysis<\/h2>\n\n
Description<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
The Cochrane Handbook<\/a> states that, \u201cSystematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. They aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods documented in advance with a protocol\u201d. This very neatly summarises the key features that make a systematic review systematic. A protocol must be written in advance that includes details such as the search strategy, the inclusion\/ exclusion criteria that will be used during screening, and the data extraction tool that will be used to guide analysis. The review should follow the methodological guidance provided by organisations such as Cochrane and JBI, and reporting guidelines such as those from PRISMA.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\nGeneral Guidelines<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\n
\n\t
Cannot be completed by a single person. Build a team that includes:<\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\n\t
\n\t\t
Subject matter experts <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t\t
Search experts <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t\t
Methods experts <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t<\/ul>\n\t<\/li>\n\t
Require a substantial time commitment: <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\t
\n\t\t
Systematic reviews need 12-24 months on average.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t<\/ul>\n\t<\/li>\n\t
Must use transparent and reproducible methods:<\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\t
\n\t\t
Use established methodologies,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t\t
Make your full search strategy for at least one database available.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t<\/ul>\n\t<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\nKey Stages in a Systematic Review<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\n
\n\t
Explore the topic with some preliminary searches, and check that a recent systematic review on the topic doesn\u2019t already exist,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Develop clear research questions, <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Write and publish a protocol,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Build a systematic search strategy in your main database, test it, and translate it for your other databases,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Screen title & abstract (Covidence is available to Laurier researchers),<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Screen full text,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Complete data extraction & risk of bias assessment,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Complete narrative or meta-analysis<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Write up and submit for publication<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
Meta Analysis<\/h3>\n\n
The Cochrane Handbook states that, \u201cAn important step in a systematic review is the thoughtful consideration of whether it is appropriate to combine the numerical results of all, or perhaps some, of the studies. Such a meta-analysis yields an overall statistic (together with its confidence interval) that summarizes the effectiveness of an experimental intervention compared with a comparator intervention\u201d. It is important to stress that this is not required for all systematic reviews. Meta-analysis is only possible if all the studies to be summarised are similar in terms of population and intervention. The aim of a meta-analysis is to \u201cstatistically combine the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results\" (Grant & Booth, 2009).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Resources<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
The Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
PRISMA Statement 2020<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
PRISMA for Searching<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
PRISMA for Systematic Review Protocols<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Haidich A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical research<\/a>. Hippokratia, 14(Suppl 1), 29\u201337.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"38be8030-4d75-4cb4-afdc-284c5fbb5b55","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Systematic review and meta-analysis"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"title":"
The End<\/p>\n","subtitle":"
Link to an overview of review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n","image":{"path":"images\/image-6785693c5689a.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720}},"contentBehaviour":"enabled","nextContentId":-1},{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"
Systematic reviews<\/h2>\n\n
Description<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
The Cochrane Handbook<\/a> states that, \u201cSystematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. They aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods documented in advance with a protocol\u201d. This very neatly summarises the key features that make a systematic review systematic. A protocol must be written in advance that includes details such as the search strategy, the inclusion\/ exclusion criteria that will be used during screening, and the data extraction tool that will be used to guide analysis. The review should follow the methodological guidance provided by organisations such as Cochrane and JBI, and reporting guidelines such as those from PRISMA.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\nGeneral Guidelines<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\n
\n\t
Cannot be completed by a single person. Build a team that includes:<\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\n\t
\n\t\t
Subject matter experts <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t\t
Search experts <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t\t
Methods experts <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t<\/ul>\n\t<\/li>\n\t
Require a substantial time commitment: <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\t
\n\t\t
Systematic reviews need 12-24 months on average.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t<\/ul>\n\t<\/li>\n\t
Must use transparent and reproducible methods:<\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\t
\n\t\t
Use established methodologies,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t\t
Make your full search strategy for at least one database available.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t<\/ul>\n\t<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\nKey Stages in a Systematic Review<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>\n\n
\n\t
Explore the topic with some preliminary searches, and check that a recent systematic review on the topic doesn\u2019t already exist,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Develop clear research questions, <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Write and publish a protocol,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Build a systematic search strategy in your main database, test it, and translate it for your other databases,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Screen title & abstract (Covidence is available to Laurier researchers),<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Screen full text,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Complete data extraction & risk of bias assessment,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Complete narrative or meta-analysis<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n\t
Write up and submit for publication.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
Resources<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
The Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
PRISMA Statement 2020<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
PRISMA for Searching<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
PRISMA for Systematic Review Protocols<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"6c303db5-7f3a-47fb-a0de-77c7c04da1bf","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Systematic review"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"title":"
The End<\/p>\n","subtitle":"
Link to an overview of review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n","image":{"path":"images\/image-67856960636c0.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720}},"contentBehaviour":"enabled","nextContentId":-1},{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"
Narrative reviews<\/h2>\n\n
Description<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
Narrative Reviews are what we often think of as a regular literature review. A summary and analysis of existing literature is undertaken, but no details are usually shared about the search strategy used or the resources that were searched. Although, as Sukhera (2022) argues, these details can certainly be included. Narrative literature reviews are common in the introductory section of a primary research paper, or as student assignments. Some disciples have specific guidelines for narrative reviews, such as the critical reviews that are often seen in education and social work.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Evidence synthesis reviews, such as systematic and scoping reviews, are different because they follow a strict research methodology that requires the whole search and screening process to be clearly documented. If you want to learn more about other types of reviews, you can read this overview of review types.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Resources<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
Guide to writing literature reviews<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Sukhera, J. (2022). Narrative reviews: Flexible, rigorous, and practical. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14 (4): 414\u2013417. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4300\/JGME-D-22-00480.1<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"10d918a5-2b03-48fc-9e58-03489f291cee","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Narrative Reviews"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"title":"
The End<\/p>\n","subtitle":"
Link to an overview of review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n","image":{"path":"images\/image-673cbbced0646.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720}},"contentBehaviour":"enabled","nextContentId":-1},{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"
The Research Question<\/h2>\n\n
A clear research question is an essential first step in any evidence synthesis project.<\/p>\n\n
Learn more about the types of questions suitable for an evidence synthesis and how to build a searchable question<\/a><\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"d5bbb5fb-f287-4bad-af69-5392efec3709","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Building a searchable question"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"title":"
The End<\/p>\n","image":{"path":"images\/image-67856c190fe90.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720},"subtitle":"
Link to an overview of review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n"},"contentBehaviour":"enabled","nextContentId":-1},{"type":{"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","params":{"text":"
An important first step in any evidence synthesis project is checking to see if any reviews have already been written or are in the process of being written. This helps reduce research waste. You can search in relevant databases for articles on your topic with the word review in the title, you can look at registered systematic reviews in PROSPERO<\/a> or Joanna Briggs<\/a>, and you can search collections of reviews from Cochrane<\/a> and the Campbell Collaboration<\/a>. A librarian can help you with this step as well.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n"},"subContentId":"371624fd-749c-4885-a75f-4c361647a65f","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Previously published reviews"}},"showContentTitle":false,"proceedButtonText":"End","forceContentFinished":"useBehavioural","feedback":{"title":"
The End<\/p>\n","image":{"path":"images\/image-67857ce26db18.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720},"subtitle":"
Link to an overview of review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n"},"contentBehaviour":"enabled","nextContentId":-1}],"endScreens":[{"endScreenTitle":"
The End<\/p>\n","endScreenSubtitle":"
Link to a summary of the review types covered in this tool<\/p>\n","contentId":-1,"endScreenScore":0,"endScreenImage":{"path":"images\/endScreenImage-6793f269315c0.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720}}],"scoringOptionGroup":{"scoringOption":"no-score","includeInteractionsScores":true},"startScreen":{"startScreenTitle":"
Choosing the right type of review<\/p>\n","startScreenSubtitle":"","startScreenImage":{"path":"images\/startScreenImage-673cbae7c5339.jpg","mime":"image\/jpeg","copyright":{"license":"U"},"width":1280,"height":720},"startScreenAltText":"Evidence Synthesis decision-making tool"},"behaviour":{"enableBackwardsNavigation":true,"forceContentFinished":false,"randomizeBranchingQuestions":false},"l10n":{"startScreenButtonText":"Start the course","endScreenButtonText":"Restart the course","backButtonText":"Back","disableProceedButtonText":"Require to complete the current module","replayButtonText":"Replay the video","scoreText":"Your score:","fullscreenAria":"Fullscreen"}}}

Evidence Synthesis Decision-Making Tool

Brief Introduction

Fiona Inglis