RESEARCH
REVIEWED BY Ling Lee, AFASA ASA SIG: Research REFERENCE
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Authors: Maria J Grant & Andrew Booth Journal: Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2009; 26: 91-108 Open Access: Yes READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE
WHY THE STUDY WAS PERFORMED With an increased number of systematic reviews added to the medical library and information literature as a result of evidence-based practice (EBP), a wide variety of terminology has been adopted to describe the methods in performing such reviews, such as review of the evidence, comprehensive review, literature review, overview and systematic review. The diversity of such terminology is confusing. As outlined in its objective, the study aims to describe and analyse the most common types of reviews, a total of 14, using examples from health and health information domains that have contributed to the library and information science (LIS) sector.
HOW THE STUDY WAS PERFORMED The authors practised literary warrant by examining the vocabulary used in the searched literature to determine the most commonly used terminology. Then, by adopting a framework called Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA), each review type was analysed to describe its specific characteristics to differentiate it from others, including its perceived strengths and weaknesses. An example was provided to appreciate the characteristics of different review types.
WHAT THE STUDY FOUND A total of fourteen (14) review types and associated methodologies were mapped against the SALSA framework and were clearly summarised in a table. The review types are as below: 1. Critical review 2. Literature review 3. Mapping review/systematic map 4. Meta-analysis 5. Mixed studies review/mixed methods review 6. Overview 7. Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis 8. Rapid review 9. Scoping review 10. State-of-the-art review 11. Systematic review 12. Systematic search and review 13. Systematised review 14. Umbrella review The study identified, in the process of classifying reviews by various authors, that there is significant incoherence and overlapping among the supposed different review types. The authors stated the only sensible way to differentiate each review type is by applying the SALSA framework to identify the unique features of each review type, followed by direct comparison and emerging precedent, due to a lack of agreement in defining and standardising review types internationally.
Making waves
JANUARY 2024 | 9
