Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Intro to Review Literature

This guide is an introduction to types of review literature. This will help to sort out differences, provide links to important guidelines, and give a starting point to consider possible workflow and procedures.

Starting questions

If you have already decided to do a scoping or systematic review and have questions, please find the subject specialist librarian for your department, and contact them for an appointment. If you are not sure who that is, or if you have an interdisciplinary topic, you can make a general appointment request. While some librarians may have drop-in times, it is best to give three working days advance notice on a request.

If you have general questions, or would like to contact the author of this guide, see the "Your Librarian" box, bottom left.

Traditional or narrative literature review

  • Sidney Samuel Thomas Reading Room Miller Learning CenterCritiques and summarizes a body of literature
  • Identifies trends in the literature, not specific elements of research.
  • Conclusions often relate to the scope of literature, or needs for research -- e.g., " there is a  shortage of studies on ______________."

  • The purpose is typically to identify needs for further research -- either due to gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge
  • Examples: Mining Learning and Crafting Scientific Experiments..., Theories on Child Protection Work..

Scoping review

Scoping Review

  • The purpose may be to gather information, form a topic/hypothesis, set parameters for research, or describe the
  • Good starting point for concept mapping or defining terms
  • Searches are as comprehensive as possible -- grey literature and non-peer reviewed items are often included.
  • The researcher's process can be replicated.
  • Search terms and search history are retained
  • The criteria for including articles is given.

Examples: Understanding nurses dual practice...,

The scoping review process is very similar to systematic reviews.

Systematic review

Systematic Review

Longer overview article: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

  • Is more comprehensive and transparent than traditional literature reviews (but they are influencing current narrative reviews)
  • Require specific iterative steps that must be taken and documented (flow/decision charts are recommended)
  • The purpose is typically to analyze data from pre-existing primary research. Secondary research (ex: CDC or Census datasets) analysis is also possible. Data are extracted from the original research articles.This can take many forms.
  • Often used as the basis for evidence-based practice, and popular in health sciences/public health
  • Generally researched by a team due to the large work load

Use the basic structure of articles to speed research

Getting familiar with the structure of articles, can help you to:

  • Identify the location of information that you'll need to consider when building a search strategy
    • For example, review searches are sometimes limited to abstract and title fields rather than subject fields. Others are not limited to any fields.
  • Quickly determine the type of study performed, and assess for inclusion
    • For example, a skim of the methodology section helps determine if an article meets inclusion criteria.
    • Traditional narrative reviews used to be quickly identified by the lack of a methodology section. With the influence of systematic reviews, methodology or "protocols" are now being included, but a "what's missing" check is still helpful.

Typical article structure:

  • Title - often long and technical.

  • Author Information - author name, affiliation (ex: university or laboratory) and contact information.

  • Citation - article title, journal or source name, volume and issue information and pagination. Also, DOI numbers are used in APA style.

  • Abstract - a summary of the whole article. 

  • Introduction - outlines the problem being examined -- the purpose or hypothesis.

  • Methodology - how the research or experiment was performed. In order for research to be reproducible, methodology must be thoroughly described.  This may include discussion of materials, instruments, and subject selection. Examination of a methodology section will determine if research is primary (data gathered by the researchers) or secondary (researchers using data sets or other information compiled by others).

  • Data/Results - data in tables, charts, figures, or illustrations.

  • Discussion/Conclusions - explains and interprets the results, drawing a final conclusion about the problem.  Primary research may bring new information to the discipline, or may confirm or dispute previous findings. Review articles may recommend research questions.

  • References - sources given in a consistent style.

Article content

Are all articles in scholarly journals or in databases peer-reviewed research?

No. Depending on what types of research you need to review, you may have to attempt to exclude certain types of articles. This may be part of your search strategy.

If you have access to our databases (on-campus or with the GALILEO password), click the examples below.

  • Information/Opinion Column: An essay that is often targeted to the practitioners of the field (doctors, teachers, counselors, etc.). Sometimes written in first person. -- example
  • Book review/essay: Much longer than popular book reviews, they usually compare similar works, and contain a detailed bibliography -- example
  • Reader Letters/Response Articles/Errata: Sometimes people respond to an article published in a previous issue. These may be informal letters, or they may be very structured debates that cite other literature. There may be cases in which someone reports an error or corrects misprints of data. A letter may also describe recent research, but the letter has not gone through the peer review process -- example