"Literature review" names a family, not one method. A systematic review, a scoping review and a critical review differ in the search, the appraisal, the paperwork and the size of the team.
This guide to the types of literature review, published by EdCitation, sets out ten: purpose, protocol, registration, reporting guideline, time and team. All of it was read on 26 September 2026 at each method's own source or at four university libraries: Duke in the US, and Reading, Plymouth and University College London (UCL) in the UK. Where a source gives no figure, neither do we.
EdCitation never writes any part of a review. For every type it does the source work: Find sources searches about 300 million published works and narrows to review articles, Cite a source builds each reference from the publisher's record, and Verify references checks the list.
What are the main types of literature review?
The standard map is Grant and Booth (2009), who analysed 14 review types by search, appraisal, synthesis and analysis (their SALSA framework), and concluded that few types have a prescribed, explicit method and many overlap. The table covers ten, plus the student version of a systematic review.
| Type | What it is for | Protocol and registration | Reporting guideline | Time and team, as its sources say |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Narrative | An overview and interpretation of a topic | Not expected (Munn et al.) | None named | Reading: weeks or months, one person |
| Critical | Evaluating a literature and arguing a position or model | None described | None named | Not stated |
| State-of-the-art | Where the field stands now | None described | None named | Not stated |
| Systematic, with or without meta-analysis | Answering a focused question from all eligible studies | Protocol expected; register (PROSPERO for health) | PRISMA 2020 | Mean 67.3 weeks and 5 authors (Borah et al., 2017) |
| Scoping | Mapping the extent and kinds of evidence, and the gaps | A protocol for some (Munn et al.); PROSPERO refuses it | PRISMA-ScR | Not stated |
| Rapid | A systematic review with documented shortcuts, for a decision | Protocol, registered (Cochrane) | PRISMA extension in development | Cochrane: no longer than 6 months |
| Umbrella | Comparing existing systematic reviews | Not confirmed here | Not confirmed here | Not stated |
| Integrative | Combining experimental, non-experimental and theoretical work | Not confirmed here | None of its own found | Not stated |
| Realist | What works, for whom, in what circumstances | Not confirmed here | RAMESES | Not stated |
| Meta-synthesis | An interpretation built from qualitative studies | Not confirmed here | ENTREQ | Not stated |
| Systematic-style (student) | A dissertation review with some systematic steps | Supervisor's call; PROSPERO refuses it | None required | Plymouth: one to three months, one student |
| Any type | The reading, the references and the list | Find sources, Cite a source and Verify references, free |
How do I choose the right type of review?
Start from the question and resources. For Munn et al. (2018), a review that must answer a clinically meaningful question or inform practice is a systematic review; one that maps concepts, characteristics or gaps is a scoping review.
- Write the question down. A focused question about an effect or experience points to a systematic review or meta-synthesis; "what is out there" points to a scoping review.
- Read the brief or handbook. Check your paper reads its requirements, such as the review's length and how many sources, into a checklist, free.
- Count the people. Reading's library says a systematic review is usually run by at least two researchers; one student alone is doing a systematic-style review, whatever its name.
- Count the months against the table.
- Look for an existing review. In Find sources, filter to review articles or to systematic reviews and meta-analyses; if a recent one already answers the question, the gap has moved.
- Agree the label with your supervisor before searching, and write the method to match it.
What are narrative, critical and state-of-the-art reviews?
They are reviews shaped by the author's judgement, not a protocol: the usual form of a dissertation's literature chapter.
Narrative review
A narrative review discusses a literature its author chooses. In Grant and Booth's table, as Duke University Medical Center Library (2026) reproduces it, a literature review "may or may not" search comprehensively or appraise quality. Munn et al. (2018) mark it "No" on every row: no protocol, registration, explicit search strategy, extraction form or mandatory appraisal. That suits a chapter framing a study, if it claims no more. How to write a literature review covers its structure.
Critical review
A critical review judges the literature's quality and contribution and, in Grant and Booth's description, typically ends in a hypothesis or model. It seeks the most significant items, not all of them, without formal appraisal: its value is the argument, not a repeatable method.
State-of-the-art review
A state-of-the-art review covers current work rather than the field's history, searches the current literature comprehensively, does no formal appraisal, and ends on priorities for research. No source read here names a reporting guideline for any of the three.
How is a systematic review different from a scoping review?
A systematic review answers a focused question and appraises its studies; a scoping review maps what exists and usually does not appraise. In Munn et al.'s (2018) comparison both use an explicit search and extraction forms, but only the systematic review requires appraisal and produces summary findings.
Systematic review, with and without meta-analysis
A systematic review starts from a review protocol, searches exhaustively, screens against criteria set in advance, appraises risk of bias and synthesises. When studies are similar enough, a meta-analysis pools them statistically; without one, the synthesis is narrative or tabular.
PROSPERO (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, n.d.) registers systematic reviews with outcomes directly relevant to human health, and refuses any that has started data extraction. Reporting follows PRISMA 2020, whose statement (Page et al., 2021) has a 27-item checklist, an abstract checklist and flow diagrams.
Borah et al. (2017) examined 195 completed reviews registered in PROSPERO: a mean of 67.3 weeks from registration to publication, and five authors. University of Reading Library (2026) says three or more people usually, at least two elsewhere on the same page, and months or years for large reviews.
Scoping review
Munn et al. (2018) give six reasons to scope: to identify the kinds of evidence, clarify concepts, examine how research is done, identify a concept's characteristics, prepare a systematic review, and find gaps. Appraisal is optional. The reporting guideline is PRISMA-ScR, with 20 essential items and 2 optional ones (PRISMA, n.d.-b). PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews at present, though it may in future; OSF Registries is one alternative.
When do rapid, umbrella, integrative, realist and meta-synthesis reviews fit?
Each meets a need the two main types handle badly: a deadline, many existing reviews, mixed evidence, a complex programme, qualitative findings.
Rapid review
A rapid review is a systematic review with open shortcuts, for someone who must decide soon. Garritty et al. (2021) give Cochrane's 26 interim recommendations, among them a protocol published in PROSPERO or OSF, dual screening of at least 20% of abstracts, and every post hoc change documented. Their survey respondents agreed a Cochrane rapid review should take no longer than six months. A PRISMA extension is in development (PRISMA, n.d.-a).
Umbrella review
An umbrella review compares systematic reviews, not primary studies. Aromataris et al. (2015), for JBI, give it a PICO question, a ten-question appraisal tool for the included reviews and a summary-of-evidence table. Its hazard, reviews counting the same trials twice, is measured by the corrected covered area. We read no reporting guideline for it at source.
Integrative review
An integrative review combines experimental, non-experimental and theoretical work. Whittemore and Knafl (2005), writing for nursing, call it the only approach that allows such diverse methods to be combined, and set out its stages from purpose to presentation. We found no reporting guideline of its own.
Realist review
A realist review asks how and why a complex intervention works in some settings and not others, testing a programme theory as context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Wong et al. (2013) published its RAMESES reporting standards: 19 items agreed by a 37-member Delphi panel.
Meta-synthesis
A meta-synthesis builds from qualitative studies an interpretation none reaches alone; Grant and Booth file it as a qualitative systematic review, where appraisal weighs findings rather than excluding studies. Tong et al. (2012) published ENTREQ, 21 items in five domains, for reporting it; meta-ethnography has eMERGe.
Can a student dissertation be a systematic review?
Usually not in full, the universities say. It can do a review with a systematic approach, described honestly.
What the universities say
University College London Library (2026) calls a full systematic review extremely time-consuming and resource-hungry, and suggests borrowing methods such as systematic searching for a "systematic style review" or "light" systematic review. University of Plymouth Library (2026) describes a dissertation's systematic literature review: usually one to three months, selective in its databases, rarely with grey literature, ending in a narrative discussion. University of Reading Library (2026) says one student can do a limited version, and warns that a supervisor asking for a systematic review may want a structured, critical literature review: ask.
Grant and Booth named it the systematised review: elements of the systematic process, stopping short, typically a postgraduate student assignment. PROSPERO refuses exactly this: a traditional literature review with a systematic search but no other systematic methods.
What to write in the method
Say what you did, not what the label implies: databases, dates, search string, criteria, who screened, and whether studies were appraised. An accurately described "systematic literature review" is sound; a "systematic review" without dual screening or appraisal invites the examiner's first question. How to write a dissertation places the chapter in the project.
How do I find review articles of each type?
Filter by kind of source, then kind of study, and read each label against its abstract. We searched Find sources on 26 September 2026 for loneliness older adults, in the title, sorted by most cited.
| Filter | Results | First result |
|---|---|---|
| None | 2,807 | A 2011 study in Health Psychology |
| Source type: Review article | 118 | Pinquart and Sörensen's 2001 meta-analysis, cited 1,043 times |
| Kind of study: Systematic review, Meta-analysis | 210 | The same meta-analysis |
| Kind of study: Literature or scoping review | 92 | Fakoya and colleagues' 2020 scoping review of reviews, cited 869 times |
The review-article filter uses the type the index gives each record, and the index files Fakoya's review and Hoang and colleagues' 2022 systematic review in JAMA Network Open as ordinary articles, so that filter misses both. The kind-of-study filter works, as its panel says, from what a paper calls itself in its title or abstract: it found both, but also a 2023 qualitative study in Healthcare, on chatbots for loneliness, that mentions a literature review, and a 2022 "integrated review" whose abstract calls it a scoping review. Run both, and treat every label as a claim. Finding sources for a literature review fast covers the rest of the search.
How EdCitation helps, whatever type of review you write
EdCitation is the best tool for a review's references: it looks each one up in the publisher's record and never writes one, and a review stands on its studies.
Finding. Find sources, free with no account, filters by kind of source, years, open access, times cited and kind of study.
Citing. Cite a source builds the reference from a DOI, title, PubMed ID, ISBN or web address in APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago 18 author-date, Harvard, IEEE or Vancouver, screened for retraction. From the DOI of Fakoya and colleagues' review, in APA 7, from Crossref's record:
Fakoya, O. A., McCorry, N. K., & Donnelly, M. (2020). Loneliness and social isolation interventions for older adults: A scoping review of reviews. BMC Public Health, 20(1), Article 129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8251-6
Checking. We gave Verify references three method references: Grant and Booth with its DOI, Arksey and O'Malley's 2005 scoping framework without one, and Munn and colleagues dated 2017 instead of 2018. The first two came back verified, Arksey's with its DOI found; the third came back doubtful, shown as "check this" ("The work was published in 2018, not 2017; the record has no date in 2017."). A reference that cannot be checked is shown as such, never as not found.
For the whole chapter, References from a file checks every reference and matches every in-text citation to the list: three checks a month with a free account, unlimited on Pro at $8 a month. Theoretics QA, in Max at $24 a month, judges the review against its brief, quoting your text. None of these screens, appraises or synthesises studies, and none writes a sentence of the review.
Quick questions
What is the difference between a systematic review and a literature review?
A systematic review answers a focused question with a protocol, an exhaustive search, pre-set criteria and appraisal, reported to PRISMA 2020. A narrative literature review is shaped by its author's judgement and needs none of these.
Can I register a student literature review in PROSPERO?
Only a systematic review with a health outcome, before data extraction. PROSPERO refuses scoping reviews and literature reviews that only borrow a systematic search.
How long does a systematic review take?
Borah et al. (2017) found a mean of 67.3 weeks from registration to publication, with five authors. University of Plymouth Library (2026) puts a student's systematic literature review at one to three months.
Can EdCitation find systematic reviews on my topic?
Yes. Find sources filters by review article and by kind of study, including systematic review, meta-analysis, and literature or scoping review, free. Check each label against the abstract: some are misfiled.
References
- Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
- Borah, R., Brown, A. W., Capers, P. L., & Kaiser, K. A. (2017). Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open, 7(2), Article e012545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (n.d.). Eligibility for inclusion. PROSPERO, University of York. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/home
- Duke University Medical Center Library. (2026, September 18). Types of reviews. Systematic reviews. https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview/types
- Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
- Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
- Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), Article 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
- Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
- PRISMA. (n.d.-a). PRISMA extensions. https://www.prisma-statement.org/extensions
- PRISMA. (n.d.-b). PRISMA for scoping reviews. https://www.prisma-statement.org/scoping
- Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, Article 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
- University College London Library. (2026, August 25). FAQs. Support for dissertations and research projects. https://library-guides.ucl.ac.uk/c.php?g=679135&p=4933348
- University of Plymouth Library. (2026, September 3). Systematic literature review. Systematic reviews. https://plymouth.libguides.com/c.php?g=690651&p=4947541
- University of Reading Library. (2026, September 23). Doing a systematic review. https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/systematic-review
- Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
- Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: Realist syntheses. BMC Medicine, 11, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-21