An important step in your project is selecting an appropriate review methodology. Read the following to decide which review type to pursue: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
The biggest distinction is whether your review is considered comprehensive or not. A non-comprehensive review seeks to find only some literature on a topic. It doesn't require a protocol and has a shorter time commitment.
Conversely, comprehensive reviews seek to find all available literature on a topic. They include but are not limited to: systematic reviews (with or without a meta-analysis), rapid reviews, integrative reviews, living reviews, umbrella reviews, and scoping reviews. The literature search for these projects is exhaustive, follows specific standards, and is documented thoroughly. This type of project also requires a registered protocol that follows a specific template. Treadwell librarians can guide you to the right template and registry.
Below are standards for commonly conducted review types.
Conducting Standards
Reporting Guidelines
The PRISMA Statement, Checklist and Flow Diagram are a set of standards that address what should be reported in a review. In addition, there are separate checklists for your protocol and abstract. Many journals expect authors to use the PRISMA statement, and some require you to submit a PRISMA checklist and flowchart with your manuscript.
Conducting Standards
Reporting Guidelines
Conducting Standards
Reporting Guidelines
Conducting Standards
The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process. This paper is most often cited in the methods section of integrative reviews.
Reporting Guidelines
