October 2026 Newsletter
October 2026 Newsletter
Galter Library
By Denise Nunes, MS RN, MLIS and Annie Wescott, MLIS
Ask a room of health sciences investigators what type of review they should conduct, and many will answer the same way: a systematic review. Over the past decade, systematic and scoping reviews have become the most recognizable forms of evidence synthesis. Their popularity has created an unintended consequence. Many scientists now believe they are the only review types worth pursuing.
They are not.
Evidence-based practice has never depended on a single type of review. It depends on an entire body of evidence. While the evidence pyramid is often presented as a hierarchy, it is more useful to think of it as a continuum. Every review type answers a different question and makes a meaningful contribution to the literature.
Too often, investigators begin with a methodology instead of a research question. Rather than asking, "What is the best way to answer this question?" they ask, "How can I make this a systematic review?" That approach can lead to projects that are unnecessarily complex, take years to complete, or are not the right fit.
Evidence-based practice depends on all types of research outputs. While strong emphasis has been placed on the top of the evidence pyramid, it can be better to view it as an ecosystem where evidence is continuously developing. Narrative reviews provide an understanding of the basic state of the literature of a topic that is in the early stages of exploration while a rapid review offers timely evidence for decision making. Integrative and qualitative reviews answer questions that traditional systematic reviews cannot. Even case studies, particularly in fields such as dermatology and infectious diseases, are often the first to describe emerging diseases, novel therapies or unexpected outcomes. Without these early scholarly contributions, many of the questions that eventually become systematic reviews would never be asked.
Several review types, their purpose and the questions they are best suited to can be found in the table below:
|
Review Type |
Main Purpose |
Example Question Stem |
|
Meta-analysis |
Determine effect size or association by statistically combining quantitative studies |
"Does X improve Y?" |
|
Rapid Review |
Provide evidence quickly to inform decisions |
"What evidence exists about X for decision-making?" |
|
Narrative Review |
Summarize and interpret concepts, theories and trends |
"What is known about X?" |
|
Scoping Review |
Map the breadth of available evidence and identify gaps |
"What evidence exists regarding X?" |
|
Qualitative Review |
Synthesize experiences, perceptions and meanings |
"How do people experience or perceive X?" |
|
Integrative Review |
Synthesize diverse forms of evidence to provide a comprehensive understanding of a topic |
"What is known about X across different types of evidence?" |
The goal is not to publish at the top of the evidence pyramid. The goal is to publish at the level that best answers the research question. Advancing healthcare requires high-quality evidence at every level of the pyramid.
To help researchers navigate these choices, the Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center has developed a new course, Scholarly Contributions: Exploring Review Types. The course introduces the spectrum of review methodologies, outlines the time and resources each requires, and provides practical guidance for selecting the approach that best aligns with your research goals. Whether you are just beginning to explore a topic or planning a comprehensive evidence synthesis, choosing the right review type is the first step toward making a meaningful scholarly contribution.
References:
Cochrane. (2026). Cochrane-Campbell handbook for qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane. https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/cochrane-campbell-handbook-qualitative-evidence-synthesis
