Narrative review vs systematic review refers to two distinct approaches: narrative reviews offer a broad, subjective synthesis of a topic without a standardised methodology, while systematic reviews employ rigorous, predefined methods to comprehensively identify, evaluate and synthesise all relevant studies, reducing bias.
A narrative review provides a broad overview of a topic, summarising and synthesising existing knowledge without following a structured or standardised methodology. It is subjective and often selective in including sources.
A systematic review follows a rigorous, predefined methodology to identify, evaluate and synthesise all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is comprehensive, transparent and minimises bias.
- Narrative review vs systematic review
- Narrative review
- Systematic review
- How to choose between narrative review vs systematic review?
- How to write a systematic review?
- How to write a narrative review?
- Editing services
Narrative review vs systematic review
- Purpose: Narrative reviews provide a broad overview of a topic, often exploring trends or gaps. Systematic reviews address specific research questions comprehensively.
- Methodology: Narrative reviews use informal, flexible approaches without standardised procedures. In contrast, systematic reviews follow rigorous protocols with predefined search strategies and inclusion criteria.
- Scope: Systematic reviews are narrowly focused, ensuring relevance and comparability of included studies. In contrast, narrative reviews cover general themes or wide-ranging topics.
- Bias and objectivity: Narrative reviews are prone to subjectivity and selection bias due to unstructured methods. Systematic reviews minimise bias with transparent, objective processes.
- Output: Systematic reviews critically appraise evidence, often informing policy, practice or future research. Narrative reviews produce descriptive and interpretive summaries.
- Advantages: Systematic reviews provide comprehensive, reliable evidence for decision-making and policy development. Pn the other hand, narrative reviews offer flexibility and are ideal for exploring broad topics or generating new ideas.
- Limitations: Narrative reviews lack standardisation, making them prone to bias and less reproducible. Systematic reviews are time-consuming, resource-intensive and unsuitable for rapidly evolving fields.
Comparison: Narrative review vs systematic review
| Narrative review | Systematic review | |
| Purpose | Offers a broad overview of a topic, often to provide context, highlight trends or identify gaps | Aims to answer a specific research question by systematically identifying, appraising and synthesising all relevant studies |
| Methodology | Informal and non-standardised, relying on the author’s discretion in selecting and interpreting sources | Follows a predefined protocol, including comprehensive search strategies, clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and quality assessment of studies |
| Scope | Often focused on a general theme or area, without a predefined question or inclusion criteria | Follows a predefined protocol, including comprehensive search strategies, clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and quality assessment of studies |
| Bias | More prone to subjectivity and selection bias, as it lacks explicit procedures for study inclusion or evaluation | Minimises bias through transparency, reproducibility and objective evaluation of evidence |
| Output | Descriptive and interpretive, typically summarising findings rather than critically appraising evidence | Provides a critical synthesis of evidence, often informing practice, policy or future research |
Narrative review
An academic narrative review summarises and synthesises existing literature on a topic, providing context, insights and identifying knowledge gaps. Unlike systematic reviews, it lacks a formal methodology, making it more subjective but flexible.
Purpose
Narrative reviews aim to explore broad themes, provide theoretical perspectives or offer an overview of current knowledge in a field. They are commonly used for conceptual development, identifying gaps or setting the stage for future research.
Structure
While the structure may vary, most narrative reviews include:
- Introduction: Defines the scope, objectives and importance of the topic.
- Main body: Organises findings thematically or chronologically, critically discussing relevant studies.
- Conclusion: Summarises key insights, highlights gaps and proposes future research directions.
Methodology
Narrative reviews do not follow a standardised methodology. Researchers typically rely on their expertise to select and interpret sources. However, to improve transparency, they should describe:
- Search strategy: Databases, keywords and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
- Source selection: Criteria for prioritising specific studies.
Advantages
- Flexibility: Suitable for exploring complex, interdisciplinary or emerging topics.
- Broad scope: Captures diverse perspectives and synthesises disparate findings.
- Ease of execution: Less time and resource-intensive than systematic reviews.
Limitations
- Subjectivity: The absence of formal methods increases the risk of bias.
- Reproducibility issues: Lack of standardised processes makes replication difficult.
- Limited evidence synthesis: Does not systematically evaluate study quality or provide quantitative findings.
Applications
Academic narrative reviews are valuable for:
- Developing conceptual frameworks or theoretical models.
- Identifying trends and gaps to guide future research.
- Informing stakeholders in areas where systematic reviews are impractical.
Systematic review
An academic systematic review is a structured, transparent and replicable process for identifying, appraising and synthesising research evidence. It follows predefined protocols to minimise bias and provide reliable answers to specific research questions.
Purpose
Systematic reviews aim to summarise all relevant research on a specific question, critically appraise the quality of included studies and synthesise findings. They are commonly used to inform evidence-based practices, policies and further research.
Structure
Systematic reviews follow a standard structure:
- Introduction: States the research question, objectives and rationale.
- Methods: Describes the protocol, including search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria and quality assessment methods.
- Results: Reports findings, often with a summary table or meta-analysis.
- Discussion: Interprets findings, compares them with existing knowledge and highlights implications.
- Conclusion: Summarises key findings and proposes recommendations.
Methodology
Systematic reviews adhere to a rigorous process:
- Define a research question: Use frameworks like PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) for clarity.
- Develop a protocol: Predefine objectives, inclusion/exclusion criteria and analysis methods.
- Comprehensive search: Use multiple databases, grey literature and hand searches to minimise publication bias.
- Screen studies: Apply criteria consistently to include relevant studies.
- Quality assessment: Critically appraise each study using tools like the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
- Data extraction: Collect key information systematically from included studies.
- Synthesis: Summarise findings narratively or quantitatively (e.g. meta-analysis).
Advantages
- Rigour and transparency: Reduces bias through predefined and reproducible methods.
- Comprehensive coverage: Ensures all relevant evidence is considered.
- Decision-making utility: Provides robust evidence to guide policies, practices and guidelines.
- Quality appraisal: Critically evaluates the strength and reliability of evidence.
Limitations
- Resource-intensive: Requires significant time, expertise and funding.
- Narrow focus: Limited to specific, well-defined questions.
- Publication bias: Risk of over-representing published studies, despite efforts to include grey literature.
- Heterogeneity: Variability in study designs can complicate synthesis.
Applications
Systematic reviews are essential for:
- Evidence-based healthcare and clinical guidelines.
- Policy-making in areas like education, environment and social sciences.
- Identifying knowledge gaps and directing future research.
How to choose between narrative review vs systematic review?
Choosing between a narrative review vs systematic review depends on the research objectives, available resources and the nature of the topic. Key factors to guide the decision include research purpose, scope of the topic, methodological requirements, resources available, application, existing research and intended audience. In summary, select a narrative review for broad, exploratory objectives and a systematic review for focused, evidence-based goals. In addition, consider the trade-offs between flexibility and rigour based on your research needs.
Research purpose
- Choose a narrative review if the goal is to provide a broad overview, explore emerging ideas or summarise diverse perspectives.
- Opt for a systematic review if you aim to answer a specific research question or critically appraise and synthesise evidence.
Scope of the topic
- For a wide-ranging or interdisciplinary topic, a narrative review is more suitable due to its flexibility.
- For a narrowly focused question, such as assessing the effectiveness of an intervention, a systematic review is appropriate.
Methodological requirements
- If rigour, transparency and reproducibility are critical, use a systematic review.
- If flexibility and interpretative depth are prioritised, a narrative review is better.
Available resources
- A narrative review requires fewer resources, making it feasible with limited time or funding.
- A systematic review is resource-intensive and may need a team with expertise in systematic methodologies.
State of existing research
- Use a narrative review for areas with limited studies or rapidly evolving topics.
- Use a systematic review for well-established fields with abundant, high-quality studies.
Audience and application
- Choose a narrative review for conceptual exploration, theoretical discussions or to provide background context.
- Choose a systematic review when informing evidence-based decisions, guidelines or policy development.
How to write a systematic review?
Writing a systematic review involves adhering to a structured approach to ensure rigour and reproducibility. Below is a detailed guide to the structure:
1. Title and abstract
- The title should clearly state that the work is a systematic review and reflect the main research question.
- The abstract should summarise the objectives, methods, key findings and conclusions. Use subheadings such as background, methods, results and conclusion for clarity.
2. Introduction
- Context: Provide background information on the topic, highlighting its significance and existing knowledge gaps.
- Research question: Clearly state the objective or question using frameworks like PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) if applicable.
- Rationale: Explain why a systematic review is necessary, mentioning how it will address gaps or inform practice.
3. Methods
- Protocol and registration: Mention if the review protocol was registered (e.g. PROSPERO).
- Eligibility criteria: Define inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies based on population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and study design.
- Search strategy: Describe the databases searched (e.g. PubMed, Scopus), keywords, search strings and date range. Include efforts to locate grey literature.
- Study selection: Explain how studies were screened (e.g. title, abstract and full-text screening) and by whom (e.g. independent reviewers).
- Data extraction: Outline how data were collected, listing key variables (e.g. study characteristics, outcomes).
- Quality assessment: Specify tools used to evaluate study quality or bias (e.g. Cochrane risk of bias tool, GRADE framework).
- Data synthesis: Describe how findings were combined—narratively or quantitatively (e.g. meta-analysis).
4. Results
- Study selection process: Use a PRISMA flow diagram to show the number of studies screened, included and excluded with reasons.
- Study characteristics: Summarise included studies in a table, covering authors, year, methods, population and key findings.
- Risk of bias: Present the results of the quality assessment, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the evidence.
- Synthesis of findings: Narratively or statistically summarise the key outcomes. For meta-analyses, include forest plots and heterogeneity measures.
5. Discussion
- Interpretation of findings: Explain the implications of the results in the context of existing literature.
- Strengths and limitations: Reflect on the strengths of the review (e.g. comprehensive search, rigorous methodology) and limitations (e.g. heterogeneity, publication bias).
- Future research: Identify gaps and suggest areas for further study.
6. Conclusion
- Provide a concise summary of the key findings and their relevance to practice, policy or research. Avoid introducing new information.
How to write a narrative review?
Writing a narrative review requires careful organisation to synthesise and interpret the literature on a topic. Below is a structured guide:
1. Title and abstract
- Title: Clearly state the focus of the review and its broad narrative nature.
- Abstract: Summarise the review’s objectives, key themes and conclusions. Highlight the topic’s significance and the gaps identified.
2. Introduction
- Context: Provide background information on the topic, its relevance and why the review is needed.
- Objectives: Clearly state the purpose of the review, such as exploring trends, summarising evidence or identifying knowledge gaps.
- Scope: Define the breadth of the review, including the themes or areas it will cover.
3. Methods (optional but recommended)
- Literature search: Briefly describe the sources consulted, including databases, keywords and selection criteria, even if informal.
- Inclusion rationale: Explain how studies or materials were chosen for inclusion (e.g. relevance, significance).
- This section is less formal than in systematic reviews but improves transparency.
4. Thematic synthesis
- Organisation: Structure the main body thematically, chronologically or by conceptual frameworks.
- Discussion of evidence: For each theme, synthesise findings from the literature, critically discussing strengths, weaknesses and inconsistencies.
- Integration of ideas: Connect findings to broader theories, debates or contexts to provide deeper insights.
- Use subheadings: Clearly define and separate themes to maintain logical flow and readability.
5. Discussion
- Interpretation: Summarise key findings and their implications in a broader context. Highlight trends, controversies and critical gaps.
- Limitations: Reflect on the limitations of the review, such as potential bias in source selection or lack of exhaustive search.
- Future directions: Propose questions or areas for further research based on identified gaps or unresolved issues.
6. Conclusion
- Provide a concise summary of the review’s main insights. Reiterate its significance and how it contributes to the understanding of the topic.
Editing services
Editing services play a crucial role in refining narrative and systematic reviews for publication. Each type of editing addresses specific aspects to enhance clarity, coherence and professionalism. Choose between proofreading, copyediting and line editing to prepare the review for publication.
Clarity and readability
Copyediting improves the clarity of narrative and systematic reviews by refining sentence structure, correcting grammatical errors and ensuring consistent language. For narrative reviews, it simplifies descriptive and thematic sections to make complex ideas accessible. For systematic reviews, it clarifies technical terminology and dense statistical details, ensuring precision without sacrificing readability.
Logical structure and organisation
Line editors enhance the organisation of reviews by ensuring that sections flow logically and align with journal expectations. Narrative reviews benefit from improved thematic coherence, making connections between ideas clear. Systematic reviews are polished to adhere strictly to required formats, such as PRISMA guidelines, ensuring that the methodology, results and synthesis are presented systematically.
Adherence to guidelines
Proofreading ensures compliance with journal-specific requirements, including formatting, citation style and word limits. For systematic reviews, proofreaders verify that sections such as the methods and results are formatted consistently and figures or tables are properly labelled. For narrative reviews, they ensure the manuscript adheres to the target journal’s expectations for informal or descriptive content.
Error elimination
Proofreaders catch and correct errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling and formatting that might detract from the professionalism of the manuscript. For narrative reviews, this includes fixing inconsistencies in informal headings or transitions. In systematic reviews, this includes resolving issues in statistical summaries, references or PRISMA diagrams.
Enhanced coherence and tone
Line editing services refine the tone and coherence of a review, aligning it with its intended audience. Narrative reviews are polished to maintain an engaging yet scholarly tone, while systematic reviews are edited to emphasise objectivity and rigour. Line-level refinements ensure that both review types convey their arguments persuasively and effectively.
Professional presentation
Proofreading and copyediting ensure a polished final draft that enhances the review’s chances of publication. This includes formatting tables and figures, aligning references and ensuring consistency in terminology. Systematic reviews, in particular, benefit from professional presentation as errors or inconsistencies in data presentation can undermine credibility.
Key takeaways
Narrative review vs systematic review highlights two distinct yet complementary approaches to synthesising research. Narrative reviews provide broad, flexible and interpretive overviews for exploring trends and theoretical frameworks. Systematic reviews, on the other hand, offer rigorous, comprehensive and evidence-based analyses for answering specific research questions. Choosing between these methods depends on the scope, objectives and resources available. Regardless of the approach, clear structure, attention to detail and editing services play a critical role in refining the review for publication and ensuring clarity, coherence and adherence to academic standards. Both methods are indispensable tools for advancing knowledge and guiding research in their respective contexts.
Contact me if you are an academic author looking for editing or indexing services. I am an experienced editor offering a free sample edit and an early bird discount.
