Skip to main content

Table 2 Types of systematic reviews, definitions, and references

From: Stigma and intersectionality: a systematic review of systematic reviews across HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and physical disability

Type of systematic review Definition and reference(s)
Critical synthesis A review which aims to demonstrate that the writer has extensively researched the literature and critically evaluated its quality. This review technique incorporates analysis and conceptual innovation [112].
Integrative review A technique that integrates review, critique, and synthesis of representative literature on a topic to create new frameworks and perspectives on the topic [113]. It also includes experimental and non-experimental research studies and combines theoretical and empirical data to gain a more comprehensive understandings of a phenomenon [114] .
Meta-analysis A review technique that “systematically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results” [112].
Meta-ethnography An interpretive and inductive approach that combines and sometimes compare the findings of ethnographic research or qualitative research to provide a higher level of analysis, generate new research questions, and reduce duplicate research [115, 116].
Meta-study A research approach that involves the analysis of theory, methods, and findings of qualitative research and synthesizes these insights into new ways of thinking about some phenomena [117].
Mixed methods review A review technique that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches [112].
Scoping review A research approach that provides a “preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope” of the research on a particular subject. The aim of this review is to identify the nature and size of research [112].
Qualitative or quantitative systematic review Engages in a systematized search, appraisal, and synthesis of research evidence which adheres to a set of guidelines [112]. Some qualitative and quantitative reviews include an assessment of methodological quality, while others may not.