Literature reviews come in various forms, each serving a specific purpose depending on the goals and context of the research. Understanding the different types of literature reviews is essential for selecting the most appropriate approach for a study. Whether the aim is to provide a broad overview, critically evaluate theories, or synthesize data from multiple Read More
Visit the URL and place your order with us. Fill basic details of your research paper, set the deadlines and submit the form.
Chat with our experts to get the best quote. Make the payment via online banking, debit/credit cards or through paypal. Recieve an order confirmation number.
Sit back and relax. Your well written, properly referenced research paper will be mailed to your inbox, before deadline. Download the paper. Revise and Submit.
Literature reviews come in various forms, each serving a specific purpose depending on the goals and context of the research. Understanding the different types of literature reviews is essential for selecting the most appropriate approach for a study. Whether the aim is to provide a broad overview, critically evaluate theories, or synthesize data from multiple studies, the type of review chosen can significantly influence the direction and quality of the research. This section explores the main types of literature reviews, including narrative, systematic, scoping, theoretical, and meta-analysis, highlighting their unique features and applications.
A literature review is a structured summary critically evaluating existing research on a particular topic. It involves gathering scholarly sources such as journal articles, books, and theses to understand the current state of knowledge. Rather than simply listing what others have written, a good literature review analyzes patterns, debates, and gaps in the literature. This helps to provide context for new research, showing how it fits into or challenges the existing body of work.
The primary purpose of a literature review is to inform readers about what is already known on a topic and to highlight areas that need further exploration. It can be organized in several ways, chronologically, thematically, or methodologically, depending on the research goal. By critically examining the strengths and weaknesses of previous studies, a literature review helps researchers justify their work and build a strong foundation for their research questions or hypotheses.
A literature review is crucial to a dissertation because it lays the foundation for the entire research project. It shows that the researcher has a solid understanding of the topic and is aware of the existing work in the field. By summarizing and analyzing previous studies, the literature review helps identify research gaps, unresolved questions, or inconsistencies that the dissertation aims to address. This ensures that the new research is original, relevant, and builds on existing knowledge rather than repeating what has already been done.
Moreover, a well-written literature review helps justify the need for the study and supports the development of the research questions, objectives, and methodology. It provides a theoretical framework and guides the researcher in choosing appropriate methods and approaches. In essence, the literature review strengthens the credibility of the dissertation by demonstrating academic rigor and showing how the study contributes to ongoing scholarly conversations.
A Systematic Review is a highly structured approach to identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing all available research on a narrowly focused question. It is distinguished by its pre-defined protocol and explicit methods to minimize bias. It’s widely used in healthcare, psychology, public health, education, and social policy, where making decisions based on consolidated evidence is vital.
Example: A systematic review could explore “What is the effectiveness of school-based mindfulness interventions in reducing anxiety in adolescents aged 12–18?”
Unlike traditional reviews, the systematic review:
Uses transparent, replicable methods
Focuses on peer-reviewed and grey literature
Emphasizes methodological quality
Aims for completeness, not selectivity
Academic Rigor & Reliability
Follows international standards like PRISMA, Cochrane Handbook, or Joanna Briggs Institute protocols. This enhances transparency, scientific integrity, and trustworthiness.
Minimizes Selection Bias
All decisions from search strategy to study selection are documented and conducted by multiple reviewers to avoid confirmation bias or cherry-picking.
Forming the Basis for Meta-Analysis
Enables statistical pooling of data (e.g., effect sizes) to identify overall trends, heterogeneity, or subgroup effects.
Influences Policy and Clinical Guidelines
Governments, NGOs, and institutions like WHO often rely on systematic reviews for evidence-based decisions.
Extremely Time-Consuming
Reviews often require several months to over a year. Delays can result from protocol design, database access issues, or screening bottlenecks.
High Technical Skill Required
Reviewers must master search syntax (Boolean logic), critical appraisal tools, bias assessment frameworks, and software (e.g., Covidence, RevMan, EndNote, Rayyan).
Publication Bias
Even with rigorous searches, studies with non-significant results are underrepresented, skewing conclusions.
Limited Scope for Interpretation
Systematic reviews prioritize objectivity and often avoid broader theoretical or narrative interpretation.
Introduction
Contextualizes the topic and explains the rationale for a review.
State knowledge gaps in current literature.
Clearly defines the research question using frameworks like PICO, SPIDER, or PICo.
Research Question(s)
Must be narrowly focused and answerable.
Example: “What are the long-term effects of online cognitive behavioral therapy on adult patients with generalized anxiety disorder?”
Eligibility Criteria (Inclusion/Exclusion)
Criteria include language, study design, population, publication year, and outcome variables.
Pre-specified to ensure objectivity.
Search Strategy
Should involve at least 3–5 scholarly databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL).
Includes grey literature to reduce publication bias (e.g., dissertations, conference papers).
Search terms, Boolean operators, truncation, and filters must be detailed.
Study Selection Process
Two or more reviewers independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts.
Conflicts are resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third reviewer.
Documented using a PRISMA flow diagram.
Data Extraction
Extraction fields may include: authorship, publication year, sample size, intervention type, outcomes, and findings.
Templates are usually pilot-tested first.
Standard tools: Covidence, Excel, EPPI-Reviewer.
Quality Assessment
Uses standardized tools:
Randomized trials: Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0)
Observational studies: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)
Qualitative studies: CASP
Mixed-methods: MMAT
Data Synthesis
Narrative synthesis: Describes and compares findings in textual form.
Meta-analysis: Pools effect sizes (Cohen’s d, odds ratios) with forest plots and heterogeneity statistics (I²).
Sensitivity analyses and publication bias tests (e.g., funnel plots) may be included.
Discussion
Explains the main results in light of the original question.
Discusses the strength of evidence, potential biases, and relevance to stakeholders.
Links findings to practice, policy, or theory.
Conclusion
Summarizes key takeaways.
Recommends implications for practice and directions for future research.
Formulate a Precise Question
Use structured frameworks like:
PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) for clinical questions.
SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) for qualitative reviews.
Design a Protocol and Register It
Write a full protocol describing objectives, methods, and rationale.
Register it on PROSPERO for transparency.
Develop a Robust Search Strategy
Work with a research librarian.
Include synonyms, MeSH terms, truncation, wildcards, and Boolean logic.
Peer-review your search strategy (use PRESS checklist).
Search Multiple Databases
Familiar sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library.
Supplement with grey literature databases (OpenGrey, ProQuest Dissertations, ClinicalTrials.gov).
Screen Studies
Use reference management software to remove duplicates.
Conduct pilot screening for calibration.
Document reasons for exclusion at each level.
Extract and Manage Data
Use standardized, piloted forms.
Double data entry enhances accuracy.
Consider qualitative data analysis software if applicable (e.g., NVivo for mixed reviews).
Assess Study Quality and Bias
Apply appropriate critical appraisal tools.
Conduct assessments in duplicate.
Synthesize Findings
Choose between narrative synthesis and meta-analysis based on homogeneity.
Use tools like RevMan, R (meta, metafor packages), or Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.
Interpret and Discuss Findings
Relate outcomes to theory, practice, and policy.
Address limitations, including methodological flaws and evidence gaps.
Write and Report the Review
Follow PRISMA 2020 checklist for transparency.
Include flow diagrams, tables, forest plots, and bias assessments.
An Integrative Review is a distinctive form of research synthesis that allows for including diverse methodologies, quantitative (e.g., randomized trials, surveys) and qualitative (e.g., interviews, ethnographies), to generate a comprehensive, holistic understanding of a phenomenon, issue, or topic. It is ideal for exploring emerging concepts, developing theories, informing policy, or framing complex problems nuancedly.
Unlike the Systematic Review, which demands strict inclusion criteria and often prioritizes quantitative studies, the Integrative Review embraces heterogeneity. It summarizes existing research and interprets, critiques, and theorizes around it, making it particularly useful for fields like nursing, education, public health, social sciences, and management.
Example: An integrative review could explore “How do cultural beliefs shape women’s experiences and perceptions of childbirth in high-income versus low-income countries?”
Allows Methodological Diversity
You can include qualitative studies, quantitative studies, mixed-methods papers, theoretical articles, and grey literature, allowing for broad conceptual development.
Supports Theoretical Development
Goes beyond summarizing data to propose new frameworks, hypotheses, or explanatory models.
Captures the Full Complexity of a Topic
Ideal for topics involving social, psychological, or behavioral dimensions that cannot be fully understood through numbers alone.
Flexible and Adaptive
Particularly valuable when evidence is sparse, fragmented, or emerging, offering a narrative-driven exploration of patterns and themes.
Greater Risk of Bias
The absence of rigid protocols can lead to subjective selection and interpretation of studies if not carefully managed.
Lacks Standardized Tools
Compared to systematic reviews, integrative reviews lack widely accepted methodological guidelines, which can affect transparency and replicability.
Requires High-Level Critical Thinking
Synthesizing diverse paradigms (positivist vs. interpretivist) demands sophisticated analytical skills and philosophical literacy.
Potential for Conceptual Confusion
If not executed rigorously, integration can become merely juxtaposition—listing diverse findings without meaningful synthesis.
Introduction
Outlines the background and rationale.
Justifies the need for a comprehensive, mixed-method synthesis.
States the review purpose and scope.
Review Questions or Objectives
Framed broadly to capture multiple dimensions.
Example: “What factors influence school retention among migrant youth across cultural contexts?”
Eligibility Criteria
Includes empirical and theoretical papers.
Accepts both peer-reviewed and grey literature.
No limitation to study design or method, but must relate directly to the phenomenon.
Search Strategy
Designed to be broad, using key databases like Scopus, ERIC, CINAHL, PubMed, and ProQuest.
May include manual searches of key journals, reference lists, and organization reports.
Study Selection
Typically involves iterative inclusion/exclusion, refined during the screening process.
Selection guided by relevance and conceptual contribution, not just methodological quality.
Data Evaluation
Rather than strict appraisal (like Cochrane tools), it uses conceptual relevance, clarity, and contribution as evaluative criteria.
Some reviews adapt tools like CASP, MMAT, or use tailored appraisal rubrics.
Data Analysis and Synthesis
Emphasizes thematic, conceptual, or content analysis.
Seeks patterns, contradictions, gaps, and emerging themes.
Integration across paradigms is critical—qualitative insights deepen understanding of quantitative trends.
Discussion
Explores the implications of themes or patterns.
May suggest conceptual models, identify knowledge gaps, or challenge dominant paradigms.
Provides contextual interpretation grounded in the literature.
Conclusion
Summarizes integrative insights.
Emphasizes implications for future research, practice, and policy.
May offer a refined theoretical framework or direction for future inquiry.
Nursing & Healthcare: To explore patient experiences, integrate clinical outcomes with lived realities, or inform holistic care.
Education: To understand how policies, pedagogy, and learner psychology interact across diverse settings.
Social Sciences: To explore intersectional issues like gender, identity, culture, and inequality.
Organizational Studies: To integrate leadership theories with empirical outcomes in different sectors.
Define a Broad Yet Clear Research Focus
Questions should invite interpretation, not just data aggregation. Examples:
“What conceptualizations of resilience exist among marginalized youth?”
“How is digital literacy conceptualized in higher education policy across regions?”
Develop a Protocol
Although not always registered like systematic reviews, a written protocol helps ensure transparency.
Outline inclusion criteria, search strategy, and synthesis approach.
Use Whittemore & Knafl’s (2005) five-stage framework for guidance.
Comprehensive Literature Search
Balance breadth with manageability.
Include conceptual articles, qualitative explorations, and empirical reports.
Document search strings and process.
Data Evaluation
Instead of strict scoring, assess studies based on:
Conceptual clarity
Methodological transparency
Relevance to review objectives
Contribution to understanding the issue
Synthesis Process
Employ constant comparison, thematic coding, and conceptual mapping.
Identify convergence and divergence across paradigms.
Avoid summarizing—aim to interpret and interrelate findings.
Build a Conceptual Model (Optional but Ideal)
Integrative reviews often culminate in a framework illustrating relationships among constructs, processes, or variables.
Write the Review
Provide rich narrative explanations.
Use tables or matrices to summarize study characteristics and themes.
Clearly distinguish between evidence-based findings and theoretical interpretations.
A Scoping Review is a type of knowledge synthesis that maps the existing literature on a broad topic or research area to identify key concepts, thematic patterns, types of evidence, and gaps in knowledge. It is beneficial when the body of literature is diverse, complex, or comprehensively reviewed.
Unlike systematic reviews, which focus on answering narrowly defined questions (e.g., about effectiveness), scoping reviews are exploratory. They do not typically assess the quality of evidence but rather provide a descriptive overview to guide future research, policy, or practice.
Example: A scoping review might ask, “What is known about the use of AI in undergraduate education globally?” rather than testing the effectiveness of any specific intervention.
Clarifies the Scope of Existing Research
Offers a bird’s-eye view of the range, nature, and extent of research on a topic.
Identifies Gaps in Literature
Crucial for pinpointing under-researched areas or inconsistencies in findings.
Includes Broad Evidence Types
Can accommodate academic articles, reports, theses, conference proceedings, and grey literature, offering a comprehensive landscape.
Flexible and Time-Efficient
Less restrictive in methodology and often faster to complete than systematic reviews.
Guides Future Systematic Reviews or Research Agendas
Ideal as a preliminary step to more focused or quantitative syntheses.
No Critical Appraisal of Evidence Quality
Scoping reviews generally do not evaluate study rigor or risk of bias, which limits their use for informing clinical or policy decisions.
Does Not Answer Specific Research Questions
While useful for exploration, it does not provide conclusive answers to effectiveness or causality.
Potential for Over-Inclusiveness
Broad search strategies can yield large volumes of literature, making data management challenging.
Limited Synthesis Depth
Typically provides summary tables and thematic categorizations rather than deep interpretation or theory building.
Introduction
States the motivation for mapping the field.
Explains why a scoping review (not a systematic review) is appropriate.
Review Question(s)
Broad and exploratory. Examples:
“What research exists on digital inequality in rural education?”
“What strategies have been used globally to reduce food insecurity in adolescents?”
Eligibility Criteria
Based on the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework (recommended by JBI).
May include diverse types of evidence: empirical, theoretical, and policy documents.
Search Strategy
Comprehensive, involving multiple databases and grey literature sources.
Uses a broad range of keywords and synonyms.
Study Selection
Performed in two stages: title/abstract screening followed by full-text review.
Often conducted by two or more reviewers for rigor and transparency.
Data Charting (Extraction)
Involves systematically recording relevant information: study aims, methods, sample, key findings, region, publication type, etc.
Often visualized in tables or graphs.
Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting Results
No meta-analysis; instead, data are mapped thematically or descriptively.
May involve frequency counts (e.g., number of studies per region, per method).
Describes emerging themes or categories.
Optional Stakeholder Consultation
Engaging policy-makers, practitioners, or community members to validate findings and identify additional sources or perspectives.
Conclusion
Highlights the breadth of literature, identifies knowledge gaps, and proposes future research or systematic review directions.
Emerging or Fragmented Topics: Where empirical research is inconsistent or in its infancy (e.g., AI ethics in education).
Health & Social Policy: To support evidence-informed decision-making.
Curriculum Development: Mapping teaching practices across countries.
Technology & Innovation: Exploring global trends, implementations, or barriers.
Define the Scope and Purpose
Justify why a scoping review is appropriate.
Common purposes:
Identify types of evidence
Clarify definitions or concepts
Examine how research is conducted
Map gaps in knowledge
Design the Protocol
Can follow the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis or Arksey & O’Malley’s framework (2005), later refined by Levac et al. (2010).
Important to outline the PCC framework (Population, Concept, Context).
Execute Comprehensive Search
Include both peer-reviewed and grey literature.
Use PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – Scoping Review Extension) to report the process transparently.
Chart the Data
Use a data extraction form with consistent fields.
Pilot-test the form with a few articles first.
Synthesize & Map Findings
Identify patterns:
Where are the studies located?
What methods are used?
What key themes or variables are studied?
Visual tools (e.g., maps, charts, bubble plots) are encouraged.
Optional Stakeholder Engagement
May involve workshops, interviews, or feedback loops with experts, users, or affected communities to contextualize and enrich findings.
Write the Review
Focus on descriptive richness and clarity.
Use tables to organize findings by theme, geography, method, or concept.
Read on How to Conduct an Effective Literature Review
A Critical Review is a literature review that goes beyond mere description of existing studies to provide a comprehensive analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of the literature. It aims to critically appraise the strengths and weaknesses of existing knowledge, synthesize competing perspectives, and often proposes new theoretical frameworks, conceptual models, or research agendas.
Unlike systematic or scoping reviews, a critical review is not bound by rigid protocols. Instead, it emphasizes intellectual rigor, depth of analysis, and theoretical contribution.
Example: A critical review might explore how feminist theory has evolved in educational research, evaluating shifts in paradigms, identifying ideological tensions, and proposing a new synthesis for future research.
Deep Theoretical Insight
Offers rich conceptual understanding and critical perspectives on a topic, often identifying underlying assumptions and paradigms.
Flexible Methodology
Allows integration of various sources (empirical, theoretical, policy documents, grey literature) without being confined to a rigid protocol.
Encourages Original Thinking
Goes beyond summarizing existing knowledge to construct new insights, theories, or conceptual frameworks.
Useful for Advanced Scholarship
Ideal for postgraduate work, thesis development, or when contributing to theoretical debates.
Lack of Standardization
Since it doesn’t follow a fixed methodology, transparency and reproducibility may be limited.
Subject to Author Bias
Greater interpretive freedom means a higher risk of selective inclusion or biased interpretation of studies.
Time-Intensive
Requires strong critical thinking, broad reading, and writing skills to synthesize and critique effectively.
Not Suitable for Policy or Practice Guidelines
Unlike systematic reviews, critical reviews are inappropriate for generating evidence-based practice recommendations.
Introduction
Introduces the topic and justifies the review’s significance.
Highlights gaps or contradictions in the literature that merit critical exploration.
Review Objectives or Questions
Framed broadly, e.g.:
“How has intersectionality shaped contemporary debates in social policy?”
“What tensions exist between neoliberalism and critical pedagogy in higher education?”
Literature Selection
Often purposive or selective based on relevance and contribution to the debate.
Includes seminal works, influential critiques, and recent developments.
Critical Appraisal
Each source is evaluated for theoretical coherence, methodological rigor, logic, and contribution to the field.
Comparisons are drawn between differing viewpoints.
Synthesis and Interpretation
Focuses on themes, conflicting arguments, ideological assumptions, or paradigm shifts.
May result in:
Development of a new conceptual model
Refinement of existing theories
A critique of dominant narratives
Conclusion
Summarizes main findings and their implications.
Suggests new directions for research, practice, or theory development.
Theoretical or Conceptual Exploration: For heavily theory-laden or ideologically contested topics.
Postgraduate Theses & Academic Books: Where profound critique and argumentation are required.
Developing Research Frameworks: Before conducting empirical studies, to clarify key constructs or assumptions.
Debunking or Challenging Dominant Views: When the goal is to interrogate the status quo and offer alternative perspectives.
Define a Critical Purpose
Ask yourself: What am I trying to critique or reframe?
Are you questioning methodological approaches, ideological underpinnings, or conceptual limitations?
Select Influential and Relevant Literature
This is not about quantity but quality.
Include a balance of foundational, mainstream, and dissenting voices.
Evaluate the Literature Deeply
Analyze:
Theoretical assumptions
Evidence quality and relevance
Logical coherence
Methodological limitations
Contextual influences (e.g., political, cultural)
Engage with Contradictions and Tensions
Highlight where the literature disagrees, or where conclusions are uncertain or politically loaded.
Ask: What’s missing? Who is excluded from this conversation?
Synthesize Creatively
Aim to build an argument or conceptual roadmap, not just describe others’ work.
You can:
Propose new definitions or categories
Merge or contrast theories
Construct a model or typology
Conclude with Contribution
What has your review revealed that was previously unclear?
How might it change research practices, theory development, or critical discourse?
An Integrative Review is a form of literature review that allows for the inclusion and synthesis of diverse empirical and theoretical methodologies to provide a comprehensive understanding of a particular topic or phenomenon. It combines experimental and non-experimental research data, theoretical articles, methodological papers, and grey literature to generate new frameworks, perspectives, or research agendas.
Unlike systematic reviews that focus on answering narrowly defined questions with strict methodological rigor, integrative reviews are more flexible and inclusive, making them ideal for complex, multifaceted issues.
Example: An integrative review on burnout in healthcare professionals could synthesize qualitative studies on lived experience, quantitative studies measuring burnout prevalence, theoretical models explaining causes, and policy documents proposing interventions.
Comprehensive and Holistic
Integrates a wide range of data types to provide a fuller picture of the research landscape.
Identifies Gaps and Inconsistencies
Highlights contradictions, underexplored themes, or methodological limitations in the existing literature.
Supports Theory Building and Policy Recommendations
Often leads to developing conceptual models, best practice guidelines, or strategic frameworks.
Highly Relevant for Complex Social and Health Issues
Ideal when phenomena cannot be captured through one methodological lens.
Challenging to Execute Well
Synthesizing studies with diverse methodologies requires advanced critical thinking and analytic skills.
Susceptible to Bias
The selection and interpretation of sources may be influenced by author’s perspective if rigorous procedures aren’t followed.
Lacks Standardized Protocol
While flexibility is a strength, it can also make transparency and replicability harder to ensure.
May Overgeneralize
Drawing broad conclusions from disparate data types can risk oversimplifying nuanced findings.
Introduction
Clearly states the research problem, rationale, and purpose.
Often includes a conceptual map or guiding framework.
Problem Identification
Outlines the specific questions or objectives driving the review.
May include sub-questions targeting different dimensions of the topic.
Literature Search Strategy
Describes databases searched, keywords used, time frame covered, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Should aim for breadth across empirical, theoretical, and policy sources.
Data Evaluation
Assesses methodological quality and relevance of included studies.
Techniques vary depending on the type of study (e.g., CASP for qualitative, PRISMA flowchart for quantitative).
Data Analysis and Synthesis
Involves categorizing, coding, and theming findings across studies.
May use matrices, logic models, or conceptual diagrams.
Discussion
Interprets the synthesized findings about theory, practice, and future research.
Highlights inconsistencies, innovations, or knowledge gaps.
Conclusion
Summarizes key insights, theoretical implications, and recommendations.
May propose a new model or framework.
Define the Scope and Purpose
Ask: What is the phenomenon, problem, or area of interest?
Define the guiding question(s) broadly enough to include multiple data types.
Develop a Review Protocol
While not mandatory, drafting a protocol improves transparency.
Include search strategies, screening procedures, and data extraction plans.
Conduct an Exhaustive Literature Search
Use multiple databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC).
Where appropriate, include peer-reviewed studies, policy reports, conceptual papers, and grey literature.
Screen and Appraise Sources
Use different quality appraisal tools depending on study type:
Qualitative: CASP, SRQR
Quantitative: STROBE, CONSORT
Mixed Methods: MMAT
Extract and Organize Data
Create a coding matrix to extract:
Study design
Sample/context
Main findings
Theoretical contributions
Limitations
Synthesize and Integrate Data
Apply thematic analysis or content analysis to group findings.
Use narrative synthesis to discuss emergent patterns or conflicting results.
Generate Conclusions and New Insights
Draw integrated conclusions across all data types.
Optionally propose a new framework, typology, or model.
Nursing, Public Health, and Education: Where understanding social, behavioral, clinical, and systemic dimensions is critical.
Multidisciplinary Topics: E.g., climate change education, digital learning in healthcare.
Theory-Practice Bridging: When empirical findings must be aligned with conceptual models or policy needs.
A Scoping Review is a type of literature review designed to map the existing research on a broad topic or area, identify key concepts, gaps, and types of evidence, and clarify definitions or boundaries of a complex field. Unlike systematic reviews that focus on answering specific questions, scoping reviews are exploratory, ideal for emerging fields, or where the body of literature is heterogeneous or underdeveloped.
Example: A scoping review on digital mental health interventions for adolescents might examine types of interventions, population groups targeted, and research methodologies used—without assessing study quality.
Broad Coverage
Captures various evidence types across disciplines, settings, and methods.
Clarifies Research Scope and Definitions
Helps to structure and define fields where terminologies, frameworks, or approaches vary widely.
Identifies Gaps and Future Research Needs
Maps underexplored areas, overlooked populations, or methodological weaknesses.
Supports Policy, Practice, and Grant Proposals
Provides stakeholders and researchers with an overview to inform decisions or funding directions.
Does Not Critically Appraise Evidence
Typically lacks a formal quality assessment, limiting conclusions on effectiveness or reliability.
May Be Too Broad or Unfocused
If not well-scoped, the review can become unmanageable or too general to be meaningful.
Synthesis Is Descriptive, Not Evaluative
Findings are often summarized narratively or through charts, not statistically pooled.
Time- and Resource-Intensive
Comprehensive searches and screening across large, diverse bodies of literature can be labor-intensive.
Introduction
Defines the purpose, background, and rationale.
Clarifies why a scoping review (not a systematic review) is appropriate.
Research Questions and Objectives
Focused on exploration, mapping, and classification, not outcomes or efficacy.
Eligibility Criteria (Inclusion/Exclusion)
Describes the population, concept, and context (PCC) rather than PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome).
Information Sources and Search Strategy
Includes databases, keywords, date ranges, and grey literature (e.g., government reports, dissertations).
Selection of Sources
Explains how studies were screened (e.g., using tools like Covidence or Rayyan).
Data Charting and Extraction
Summarizes key characteristics: authorship, publication year, population, concept studied, methodology, findings.
Collation, Summary, and Report of Results
Uses narrative synthesis, tables, or charts to present mapped data.
Discussion and Implications
Identifies trends, inconsistencies, research gaps, and future directions.
Conclusion
Summarizes what was found, what is lacking, and where research could or should go next.
Define the Purpose and Research Questions
Use broad, exploratory questions like:
What types of studies exist on…?
What are the key concepts in…?
How is this phenomenon studied across disciplines?
Design the Protocol (Optional but Recommended)
Outline the approach, databases, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and data charting methods.
Use frameworks like Arksey & O’Malley (2005) or Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance.
Conduct a Comprehensive Literature Search
Search across at least 3–5 major databases.
Include grey literature and hand-searching of references.
Document all search strategies for transparency.
Screen Studies (Title, Abstract, Full Text)
Apply the PCC framework (Population–Concept–Context) to determine relevance.
Include all study types: qualitative, quantitative, theoretical, and opinion pieces.
Extract and Chart Data
Use a structured table to record:
Author, year, country
Aim and methodology
Population/sample
Concept/focus
Key findings
Collate, Summarize, and Present Results
Use visualizations: pie charts, bar graphs, tables, concept maps.
Report frequency of themes, types of evidence, or methodological trends.
Analyze and Report Gaps
Note neglected topics, populations, regions, or methodological weaknesses.
Offer recommendations for systematic reviews or empirical research.
Emerging or Fragmented Fields
E.g., AI in healthcare and remote education during pandemics.
Mapping Interdisciplinary Research
Topics spanning medicine, psychology, and sociology.
Informing Policy or Funding
Organizations need an overview of current knowledge before investing.
Precursor to a Systematic Review
To assess whether enough evidence exists to justify a systematic review.
1. How is a systematic review different from a narrative review?
A systematic review uses a clearly defined, methodical approach to search, select, and analyze studies. In contrast, a narrative review is more descriptive and subjective, often lacking a rigorous search strategy.
2. When should I use a scoping review?
A scoping review is helpful to map existing literature, identify research gaps, or explore a broad topic before narrowing your research focus.
3. What is the purpose of a theoretical review?
A theoretical review examines and critiques existing theories, models, or conceptual frameworks, often to build a foundation for new theoretical development or application.
4. Can I combine types of literature reviews in one study?
Yes, in some cases. For example, you might conduct a scoping review to identify key themes and then perform a systematic review on a specific aspect. However, combining types should be justified and clearly explained.
5. Which type of review is best for my dissertation?
It depends on your research goals. A systematic review is best for in-depth, focused questions, while a narrative or theoretical review may suit conceptual or exploratory studies. Consult your advisor or supervisor to choose the best approach.
Evan John