An integrative review provides a broader summary of the literature and includes findings from a range of research designs. It gathers and synthesizes both empirical and theoretical evidence relevant to a clearly defined problem. It may include case studies, observational studies, and meta-analyses, but may also include practice applications, theory, and guidelines. It is the only approach that allows for the combination of diverse methodologies. Its aim is to develop a holistic understanding of the topic, present the state of the science and contribute to theory development. The integrative review has been advocated as important for evidence-based practice initiatives in nursing (Hopia et al., 2016).
A type of review that summarizes the evidence on a topic using subjective or informal methods to collect and interpret studies (Kysh, n.d.). Can be done on a general topic or a specific question and may cover a wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. Good for background information on a topic.
A meta-analysis is a statistical method for combining the findings from quantitative studies. It evaluates, synthesizes, and summarizes results. and may be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review.
A meta synthesis is the systematic review and integration of findings from qualitative studies (Lachal et al., 2017).
Rapid reviews are accelerated and/or abbreviated versions of systematic reviews. They use methodological shortcuts (at the risk of introducing bias) to make them faster than a full systematic review. Search strategies, comprehensiveness, and the time range covered for a rapid review may vary. They are useful for addressing issues requiring quick decisions.
A scoping review is a type of knowledge synthesis which follows a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps (Tricco, et. al, 2019). Scoping reviews can be a precursor to a systematic review and may take longer than a systematic review to complete. Use a scoping review to identify key concepts in the field, gaps in the research, and types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and research (Daudt, 2013).
A systematic review is a type of evidence synthesis that gathers, assesses and synthesizes all available empirical research on a specific question using a comprehensive search method, with a minimal amount of bias. The systematic review process is an efficient way to evaluate large amounts of information and the reviews are extremely useful for making healthcare decisions based on evidence from multiple studies.
A review of systematic reviews. Also referred to by several different names in scientific literature such as overviews of reviews, reviews of reviews, a summary of systematic reviews or a synthesis of reviews. A systematic review is the main and often sole study type that is considered for inclusion in an umbrella review (Aromtaris et. al, 2020). For more information see JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis - Chapter 10: Umbrella Reviews.
For more quantitative and qualitative review types see Knowledge Synthesis Methods from Right Review.
More information on review types:
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. See Table 1 Main review types characterized by methods used.
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
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 1-9.