Which two types of literature reviews are commonly discussed, and which is considered more robust?

• A. Narrative and Systematic; Systematic is more robust
• B. Narrative and Systematic; Systematic is less robust
• C. Systematic and Meta-analysis; Meta-analysis is more robust
• D. Scoping and Rapid; Rapid is more robust

Answer: (A)

Two common styles of literature reviews are narrative reviews and systematic reviews. A narrative review offers a broad, qualitative summary of the literature on a topic, often guided by the author's perspective. Because it doesn’t follow a predefined search or formal appraisal, it can be subjective and may miss relevant studies, which can limit its completeness and reproducibility.

A systematic review, by contrast, follows a predefined protocol: a comprehensive search plan, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, transparent study screening, formal assessment of study quality or risk of bias, and careful data extraction and synthesis. This structured approach aims to minimize bias, improve completeness, and make the process reproducible, which is why it’s considered more robust.

Sometimes a systematic review includes a meta-analysis, which combines results statistically across studies. Meta-analysis is a powerful tool within a systematic review, but it’s not a separate style of literature review itself.

Thus, the combination of narrative and systematic reviews is the commonly discussed pairing, with systematic reviews regarded as the more robust due to their rigorous, transparent methods.