Type of Review and How to Get Started

  • Matthew Skelly
  • Andrew Duong
  • Nicole Simunovic
  • Olufemi R. Ayeni


Literature reviews provide a method by which to synthesize and present available information on a given topic. There are two main types of reviews: systematic reviews and narrative reviews. Systematic reviews are defined by their detailed research questions and explicit methodology in identifying the appropriate resources to answer the research question. These reviews require more time to conduct but provide conclusions that are reproducible and are less biased by the views of the author. Narrative reviews do not have a set methodology, but can be performed quickly, and may include the use of non-peer-reviewed sources of information such as editorials, interviews and/or expert opinion. Both review types have their advantages, which are discussed in this chapter.


  1. 1.
    Alper B, Hand J, Elliott S. How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant for primary care. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92:429.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhandari M, Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges Team. Doubling the impact: publication of systematic review articles in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1012–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:388–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaudhry H, Mundi R, Singh I, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M. How good is the orthopaedic literature? Indian J Orthop. 2008;42:144–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster J-Y. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:963–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gagnier JJ, Kellam PJ. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e771–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green B, Johnson C, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5:101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hitchcock M. Review vs systematic review vs ETC. In: LibGuides Nurs. Resour. 2017. Accessed 6 Oct 2017.
  9. 9.
    Hui Z, Yi Z, Peng J. Bibliometric analysis of the orthopedic literature. Orthopedics. 2013;36:e1225–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hurwitz S, Slawson D, Shaunessy A. Orthopaedic information mastery: applying evidence-based information tools to improve patient outcomes while saving orthopaedists’ time. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(6):888–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hussain N, Turvey S, Bhandari M. Keeping up with best evidence: what resources are available? J Postgrad Med Edu Res. 2012;46:4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kay J, Memon M, Rogozinsky J, de Sa D, Simunovic N, Seil R, Karlsson J, Ayeni OR. The rate of publication of free papers at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy congresses. J Exp Orthop. 2017;4:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Bhattacharyya S, Kamath AF, Boettner F, Wright J. Does surgical approach affect outcomes in total hip arthroplasty through 90 days of follow-up? A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017;33(4):1296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moher D. Consort: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1998;279:1489–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riemsma RP, Pattenden J, Bridle C, Sowden AJ, Mather L, Watt IS, Walker A. Systematic review of the effectiveness of stage based interventions to promote smoking cessation. Br Med J. 2003;326:1175–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rother ET. Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta Paul Enferm. 2007;20:5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Young NL, Cheah D, Waddell JP, Wright JG. Patient characteristics that affect the outcome of total hip arthroplasty: a review. Can J Surg. 1998;41:188–95.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Skelly
    • 1
  • Andrew Duong
    • 1
  • Nicole Simunovic
    • 1
  • Olufemi R. Ayeni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations