Library Guides: Systematic Reviews and Evidence Based Practice: Other reviews

Critical Review

The main focus of this review is a critical analysis of cited resources, using appropriate criteria such as strengths, weaknesses or validitity.
It goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis, which typically results in a hypothesis or model.
After reading a critical review, the reviewer should be able to make an assessment of a topic.
Critical Reviews should help in the evaluation of newly developed concepts.

Researchers critique, summarize and make conclusions about a topic, based on a systematic and detailed search.
Utilizes both empirical and theoretical literature.
Include both experimental and non-experimental studies.
Search should be transparent and replicable.
The effects of subjectivity are minimized through carefully applied criteria for evaluation.

Mixed Methods Reviews are Systematic Reviews which include qualitative and quantitative or mixed methods studies
They are best designed for multidisciplinary topics, or to answer multiple questions in one systematic review.
They are not considered inherently reproducible or transparent.
There are no universally adopted methods for conducting Mixed Methods Reviews.

Narrative Reviews are comprehensive narrative synthesis of evidence.
The narrative reviews describe and appraise published articles although the methods for selection of articles may not be described.
As a consequence Narrative Reviews are not reproducible.

Summarises and synthesises research findings within time and resource constraints.
It is an assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research.
The review needs to be undertaken in a systematic manner, but differs from a systematic review in relation to the extensiveness of the search strategies and methods used to undertake the analysis.
They provide more timely information for decision making than a systematic review. Often policy makers require a short deadline and a systematic review for synthesizing the evidence is not practical.
It speeds up the Systematic Review process; it is should not be considered a mini Systematic Review with the corners cut.

Focuses on understanding mechanisms by which an intervention works, or not.
It involves identifying mechanisms that impact an intervention and exploring how they work and under what conditions.
Stakeholder involvement in the process is high as the realist review is derived following negotiation between stakeholders and reviewers.
It involves identification of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes.

An Umbrella Review is a systematic review of systematic reviews.
It compiles evidence from multiple research syntheses in order to summarize existing evidence and, like systematic reviews, follows clear methods.
Useful when a number of Systematic Review have already been done on a subject, or when are there are multiple competing interventions for a condition.
It includes systematic reviews or meta-analyses as the main study type and thus examines only the highest level of evidence- they do not search for, analyze or synthesize primary research studies.
It is used when there needs to be a rapid evidence synthesis for decision-makers but higher quality evidence is needed, due to limitations of the rapid review methodology.
It must include a re-syntheses of data.