Skip to Main Content
site header image

Literature Reviews: Systematic, Scoping, Integrative

Characteristics of Review Types

  Systematic Reviews Scoping Reviews Integrative Reviews
Purpose

Gather and synthesize homogenous studies in order to provide a single  summary of available evidence, frequently to answer a clinical question.

 Review existing literature on a topic, generally conducted when literature is diverse in type (heterogenous) or in its nascency when more specific questions are unanswerable. Gather and synthesize both empirical and theoretical evidence relevant to a clearly defined problem.
Research Question Very specific, frequently 
following a framework 
(e.g. PICO)

Generally broad

 More important to have a stated problem. It is not always in the form of a question.

Literature Types 
Included		 Defined study types, ideally homogenous in design All types, depending
on the research
question		 Empirical and theoretical literature
Quality Assessment Strongly encouraged Optional, depends on review objectives Recommended
Data Extraction

Outcomes must be extracted. Other data items will vary depending on review objectives but often contain details about the research design and/or methods.

 Data items will vary depending on review objectives. Data items will vary depending on review objectives

 

Choosing a Review Type

Not sure which review type is right for your research question? Check out the links below for help choosing.

Steps in a Systematic/Scoping/Integrative Review

Creating an effective search for a systematic review means walking a tightrope between comprehensiveness and managability. You want to try to include all of the studies that could possibly be relevant while simultaneously getting your search results down to a number of articles that you can realistically review. 

The Basic Process:

  1. Develop a research question.
  2. Consult with a librarian for help with steps 3-16.
  3. Search databases to see if a review has already been published on your topic. 
  4. Search protocol repositories to see if a review on your topic is planned.
  5. Select the type of review (systematic, scoping, integrative). This will require running some test searches to see if there is enough literature to merit a systematic review.
  6. Select databases.
  7. Select grey literature sources (if applicable). Read this article for helpful suggestions on systematically searching for grey literature.
  8. Formulate an initial search for one of your selected databases. For tips on searching, consult our Mastering Keyword Searching guide.
  9. Review results from initial search, scanning titles, abstracts, and subject headings to identify additional terms. You may also want to use the subject heading database you can find within each database.
  10. Run the search again. Continue to add relevant terms and adjust the scope of your question (which may require eliminating terms) until results are a reasonable size and predominantly relevant to your question.
  11. When you think your search is nearly final, gather 2-3 of your most relevant articles and test their reference lists against your search results. If your search contains a large majority of the relevant articles from those reference lists, your have your final search (remember no search is ever perfect, and you will nearly always add articles you find via reference lists, recommendations, etc. that did not appear in your search results). 
  12. Translate your search to your other databases. Generally your keywords will stay the same across databases, but you will most likely need to adjust your subject headings, because those can vary from database to database. Beware of tools like Polyglot that claim to be able to translate your searches for you. They do not actually verify the subject headings in the other databases.
  13. Ask a librarian to peer review your search. Try the PRESS checklist. 
  14. Develop inclusion and exclusion criteria in preparation for reviewing articles. Try to make these as specific as you can, including operational definitions, especially if you have multiple people who will be reviewing articles with you.
  15. Write a protocol.
  16. Run the final searches and record the following:
    1. Database name (be as specific as possible, including the full title and platform, especially for databases that are offered in multiple formats, e.g. Ovid Medline) and dates of coverage.
    2. Search terms, including indicating which are subject headings and which are keywords plus any limitations to where the keywords were searched (e.g. titles and abstracts only) if relevant.
    3. Database limits/filters applied to the results (e.g. publication year, language, etc.).
    4. Date of your search.
    5. Number of results.
  17. Consider using a tool such as Covidence that will manage deduplicating your results and the entire review process.
    1. To make an account under our subscription, sign up here, using your IHP email address.
    2. For more information on how to use Covidence, self-enroll in the library's online Covidence course.
  18. Begin title/abstract screening. Two blind reviewers for each item is best practice.
  19. Begin full-text review of the articles still remaining. Again, two reviewers for each item is best practice. 
  20. Conduct citation mining for the articles that make it through full-text review. That means looking at reference lists (backwards searching) and searching for articles that cite back to the article you have (forward searching). A tool like CitationChaser can be really helpful for this step. You might also consider setting aside all of the systematic and scoping reviews that came up with your search (generally those are excluded from your review) and mining their reference lists as well.
  21. If using Covidence, import the cited/citing articles citations into Covidence, and repeat the title/abstract screening and full-text reviews for the articles identified through citation mining.
  22. Check all articles that made it through the full-text review for retractions, and remove any articles that have been retracted. If you are using Covidence, you can export your included articles in an .ris file and import them into Zotero which will automatically check for retractions.
  23. Conduct a critical appraisal of included articles (aka Risk of Bias Assessment or Quality Assessment). This is a required step for systematic reviews but not necessarily for scoping reviews. There are many tools out there to help you with this step. Find out more on the Tools page of this guide.
  24. Begin data extraction and synthesis.
    1. Covidence. (2024). A practical guide to data extraction for intervention systematic reviews.
    2. Pollock et al. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520-532. 
  25. Prepare your manuscript (for information on writing each section of your manuscript, see our guide to Writing up Your Own Research). 

 

Confirming the Knowledge Gap

Before beginning your review, you need to be sure that no other reviews with the same research question as yours already exist or are in progress. This is easily done by searching research databases and protocol registries.

Databases to Check

Protocol Registries

Standards and Reporting Guidelines

It is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the standards and reporting guidelines for the type of review you are planning to do. Following the standards/guidelines as you plan and execute your review will help ensure that you minimize bias and maximize your chances of getting published.

Systematic Reviews

Scoping Reviews

Integrative Reviews