Systematic reviews and purposive (nonsystematic) reviews serve valuable and complementary roles in synthesizing the results of original research studies. Systematic reviews use rigorous methods of article selection and data extraction to shed focused, deep light on a relatively narrow body of research, yet of necessity may exclude potentially insightful works that fall outside the predefined scope. Purposive reviews offer flexibility to address more far-reaching questions and pursue novel insights, yet offer little assurance of a balanced perspective on the issue. This chapter reviews the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and suggests specific questions to help researchers select among these approaches. Different approaches to quantitative and narrative research synthesis, including meta-analysis, are also described.
Literature review Systematic review Nonsystematic review Purposive review Meta-analysis Research synthesis
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook DA. Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: complementary roles for nonsystematic and systematic reviews. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13:391–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook DA. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis in medical education: what role do they play? Med Teach. 2012;34:468–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook DA. Tips for a great review article: crossing methodological boundaries. Med Educ. 2016;50:384–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification, and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:128–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis. 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009.Google Scholar
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook DA, West CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ. 2012;46:943–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:376–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 31 May 2018.