Guides: Nursing: Ph.D & Research: Comparision of Reviews Lite

List Comparison

Description	Methods used (SALSA)
Description	Search	Appraisal	Synthesis	Analysis
Integrative Review: Midway between a simple literature review and a complex systematic review, an integrative review uses a detailed search strategy to find relevant evidence to answer a clinical question. To summarize and critique the state of the science about a specific research topic by analyzing previously conducted research studies.	Identify most significant concepts; May or may not include comprehensive searching	Evaluation based on contribution	Narrative	Identify conceptual contribution
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.
Mixed studies review/mixed methods review: Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies	Librarian conducts search; Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies	Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists	Typically, both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies	Analysis may characterize both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other
Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis: Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies	Librarian conducts search; May employ selective or purposive sampling	Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/ exclusion	Qualitative, narrative synthesis	Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models
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)	Librarian conducts search; Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in 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. Attempts to specify a viable review
Systematic review: Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesize research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review	Librarian conducts search; 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
Systematic search and review: Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’	Librarian conducts search; Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching	May or may not include quality assessment	Minimal narrative, tabular summary of studies	What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations
Adopted from: Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x and Whittemore, R. and Knafl, K. (2005), The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52: 546–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Traditional or Narrative literature Review

Critiques and summarizes a body of literature
Draws conclusions about the topic
Identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge
Requires a sufficiently focused research question

Weaknesses:

A large number of studies may make it difficult to draw conclusions
The process is subject to bias that supports the researcher's own work.

Systematic Literature Review

More rigorous and well-defined approach
Comprehensive
Published and unpublished studies relating to a particular subject area
Details the time frame within which the literature was selected
Details the methods used to evaluate and synthesize findings of the studies in question

Example of systematic review

Meta-analysis

A form of systematic review (reductive)
Takes findings from several studies on the same subject and analyzes them using standardized statistical procedures
Integrates findings from a large body of quantitative findings to enhance understanding (study=unit of analysis)
Draws conclusions and detect patterns and relationships
Librarian conducts search

Example of meta-analysis

Meta-synthesis

Non-statistical technique
Integrates, evaluates and interprets findings of multiple qualitative research studies
Identifies common core elements and themes
May use findings from phenomenological, grounded theory or ethnographic studies
Involves analyzing and synthesizing key elements
Goal: transform individual findings into new conceptualizations and interpretations
Librarian conducts search

Example of meta-synthesis

Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

Systematic Review

Literature Review

Search strategies must be replicable

Librarian conducts search
Document database names & platforms (Medline/Ovid, CINAHL/ EBSCO), search dates, all search terms & limits used in the methods section of a publication or in an appendix.
Informationists who create the search strategy often write the methods section.

Search strategies do not need to be replicable

Normally not published in the methods section.
Are less detailed when published.

Follow specific search methodologies that ensure comprehensive results

Search strategies are highly sensitive to find relevant articles.
Many databases are searched.
Other sources, such as ClinicalTrials.gov & hand-searching, are used.

Searches vary in how comprehensive they are

Search strategies may not be as comprehensive in:
- search terms used
- the number of resources that searched.

Require a significant time commitment

Because of the methodology of systematic reviews, they can take 18-24 months to complete, even with a team involved.

Take much less time

The time frame depends on the topic, what you are trying to achieve with the search, & thus how comprehensive the search needs to be, but it can be significantly shorter.

Typically retrieve a high number of results

Searches produce large numbers of search results because of the sensitivity of an SR search strategy.
Citations are excluded after manual review.

Retrieve the lower number of results

These searches retrieve fewer results than SR search strategies because they are more specific than sensitive.
A manual review may not be necessary.

Require a team

Generally, two or more individuals independently review each article separately to determine whether it meets inclusion criteria.
Conflicts are solved by a third party.
Includes a trained Librarian with authorship

Can be completed by individuals

Results do not need to be reviewed for inclusion or exclusion by multiple individuals.

Protocol-driven

Answers a specific clinical question.
Has specific inclusion & exclusion criteria.
Uses methods for assessing bias.

Does not use a protocol

Adapted from Penn State Hershey