Types of Literature Reviews: A Complete Guide to Choosing the Right Approach

There are more types of literature reviews than most researchers realize. The widely cited typology by Grant and Booth (2009) identifies 14 distinct review approaches, each with different methods, purposes, and reporting standards. This guide covers the seven types you're most likely to encounter (narrative, systematic, scoping, integrative, meta-analysis, rapid, and umbrella), explains what each one does and when to use it, and shows how the same research question would be handled differently across review types.

The Seven Main Types at a Glance

The table below summarizes the seven types of literature reviews most commonly used across disciplines. The detailed sections that follow expand on each one with purpose, methodology, and use cases.

Narrative Review

A narrative review provides a broad, flexible overview of the existing research on a topic. It uses no pre-registered protocol, doesn't require comprehensive search documentation, and reflects the writer's judgment about which sources are relevant and how they should be synthesized. The term is sometimes used as a synonym for "literature review" in general academic usage.

When to use: Most dissertation literature review chapters and journal article literature review sections are narrative reviews. The format works well when the goal is to contextualize a new study, map a broad field, or build a theoretical argument. Narrative reviews are the default in nearly every field outside of evidence-based medicine and increasingly evidence-based social science.

Limitations: Selection bias is a real risk because the writer chooses which sources to include without a documented protocol. Narrative reviews are typically not reproducible: another writer reviewing the same topic might select different sources and reach different conclusions. This is why narrative reviews are not appropriate when the goal is to produce evidence for clinical guidelines or policy decisions.

For the full process of writing a narrative literature review, see our guide on how to write a literature review.

Systematic Review

A systematic review answers a specific research question through a rigorous, pre-registered protocol that documents every step of the process: research question (often in PICO format), databases searched, search strings, inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening procedures (typically dual independent screening), quality appraisal of included studies, and synthesis methods. PRISMA reporting standards are required by most journals that publish systematic reviews.

When to use: When the goal is to synthesize the totality of available evidence on a focused question with minimal bias. Systematic reviews are standard in health sciences, increasingly common in social sciences and education, and often required for clinical guidelines or policy decisions.

Limitations: Time and resource intensive. Typically requires a team of at least two reviewers plus a librarian, and the process often takes 6 months to 2 years or more. Not appropriate for broad theoretical questions or for fields where the available evidence resists rigid synthesis.

For the detailed comparison between systematic and narrative formats, see our article on systematic review vs literature review.

Scoping Review

A scoping review maps the breadth of available literature on a topic without necessarily synthesizing it. The goal is to identify what kinds of studies exist, what populations and outcomes have been studied, what methodologies have been used, and what remains understudied. Scoping reviews use structured search procedures and inclusion criteria, but they don't require the same level of rigor as a full systematic review.

When to use: Before a full systematic review, to determine whether a systematic review is feasible and what its scope should be. Also useful when the question is too broad for a systematic review or when the literature is too heterogeneous to synthesize statistically. The JBI methodology (Peters et al., 2024) is the current standard for scoping review reporting.

Limitations: Scoping reviews describe the literature but typically do not synthesize findings or assess study quality. They tell you what exists; they don't tell you what the evidence collectively shows.

Integrative Review

An integrative review combines empirical and theoretical literature to generate new perspectives on a topic. Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) framework is the most widely cited methodology. Integrative reviews allow inclusion of qualitative studies, quantitative studies, theoretical literature, and methodological discussions, which makes them useful for topics where multiple kinds of evidence speak to the same question.

When to use: When your research question requires integration of multiple types of evidence (empirical and theoretical, or qualitative and quantitative), and a strictly quantitative or systematic approach would exclude relevant material. Common in nursing, education, organizational research, and applied health sciences.

Limitations: The flexibility that makes integrative reviews useful also makes them harder to conduct rigorously. The methodology requires careful documentation of search procedures, inclusion criteria, and synthesis approach. Integrative reviews are sometimes criticized for being insufficiently systematic; if the rigor isn't there, the conclusions may be vulnerable.

Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis is a statistical method for pooling quantitative findings across studies. It's often conducted as part of a systematic review when enough included studies are similar enough in design, population, intervention, and outcome to combine numerically. Effect sizes are calculated for each study and pooled to produce an overall estimate with confidence intervals, along with assessments of heterogeneity, publication bias, and the influence of individual studies.

When to use: When the research question is quantitative, when enough comparable studies exist, and when the statistical pooling will produce more reliable estimates than individual studies can. Meta-analyses are standard in clinical research, increasingly common in education and psychology, and useful in any field with substantial quantitative evidence on a focused question.

Limitations: Requires statistical expertise. Heavily dependent on the comparability of included studies; pooling apples and oranges produces misleading results. Not all systematic reviews include a meta-analysis (when the studies are too heterogeneous, narrative synthesis is more appropriate), and not all meta-analyses are part of formal systematic reviews.

Rapid Review

A rapid review is an abbreviated systematic review that uses streamlined methods to produce results faster, typically for urgent policy or clinical decisions. Common time-saving measures include limiting the search to a smaller set of databases, restricting date ranges, using single rather than dual screening, and abbreviated quality appraisal. The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group provides guidance on which shortcuts preserve the integrity of the review and which compromise it.

When to use: When a decision must be made on a timeline that doesn't allow for a full systematic review. Common during public health emergencies, urgent policy reviews, and clinical decisions where waiting for a full review would mean acting without evidence.

Limitations: By design, rapid reviews trade some methodological rigor for speed. The result is a synthesis that's better than no review at all but less definitive than a full systematic review. Rapid reviews should explicitly report which shortcuts were used so readers can assess the limitations.

Umbrella Review

An umbrella review synthesizes the findings of existing systematic reviews on a topic. Sometimes called a "review of reviews," this approach is useful in mature research areas where multiple systematic reviews have already been published on related questions. The umbrella review compares the findings, methodologies, and conclusions across the existing reviews to produce a higher-level synthesis.

When to use: In well-developed research areas with multiple existing systematic reviews. Common in clinical medicine, public health, and increasingly in education research. The JBI methodology is the standard for umbrella review reporting.

Limitations: Only feasible when enough systematic reviews already exist on the topic. The umbrella review inherits the limitations of the underlying systematic reviews, so the quality appraisal of the included reviews is essential.

The Same Question, Four Approaches

To make the differences concrete, consider how the question "Are exercise interventions effective in reducing depressive symptoms among older adults?" would be handled by four different review types.

How to Choose the Right Review Type

Choosing the right review type comes down to four practical questions.

1. What's your research question? A focused question about a specific intervention or effect points toward a systematic review or meta-analysis. A broad question about what's been studied points toward a scoping review. A question about theoretical or practical integration points toward an integrative review. A question about context and gaps points toward a narrative review.
2. What resources do you have? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses require teams, librarian support, and months of dedicated time. Narrative reviews can be conducted by a single writer in weeks. Rapid reviews fit between these extremes when speed is essential.
3. What does your field expect? Health sciences default to systematic reviews. Humanities default to narrative reviews. Nursing increasingly uses integrative reviews. Match the format to disciplinary conventions and the requirements of your program or target journal.
4. How will the results be used? Reviews intended to inform clinical guidelines or policy decisions need the rigor of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Reviews intended to contextualize a new study or frame a dissertation can use narrative or integrative formats.

Several university libraries and research centers have built decision tools that walk you through these questions to recommend a review type. Cornell University Library and the University of Manitoba both publish well-regarded "which review is right for you" tools. These are useful sanity checks but shouldn't substitute for discussion with your advisor or methodology specialist.

Other Review Types Worth Knowing

Grant and Booth's (2009) typology identifies 14 distinct review types. The seven above are the most commonly used, but several others appear in specific contexts.

• Critical review. Demonstrates extensive engagement with the literature and critically evaluates the quality of existing work. Often produces a new conceptual framework or hypothesis.
• State-of-the-art review. Focuses on current literature, typically the most recent five years, to characterize the present state of a field.
• Mixed-methods review. Combines quantitative and qualitative evidence using formal synthesis methods.
• Realist review. Examines complex interventions to understand what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why.
• Qualitative evidence synthesis. Pools qualitative research findings, often using meta-ethnographic or thematic synthesis methods.
• Living systematic review. A systematic review that's continually updated as new evidence becomes available. Maintained by the Cochrane Living Evidence Network.

Why Researchers Choose Editor World for Literature Review Editing

Editor World edits all major review types across health sciences, social sciences, education, humanities, and STEM fields. Editors with relevant subject-matter experience review for synthesis quality, methodology compliance (PRISMA, JBI, or other standards as applicable), citation accuracy, and language clarity.

• 100% human editing, no AI at any stage. Every edit is performed by a native English-speaking editor from the USA, UK, or Canada.
• 15 years of experience. Editor World was founded in 2010 by Patti Fisher, PhD, a professor of consumer economics, and has edited more than 100 million words for over 8,000 clients across 65+ countries.
• Editors average 15 years of professional experience. Many hold advanced degrees and edit regularly within their own disciplines.
• Recommended by Boston University Economics Department. The department lists Editor World as a recommended editing resource for its graduate students.
• Choose your editor. Clients browse editor profiles, review credentials and ratings, and select the editor who best fits the document.
• BBB A+ accredited since 2010. 5.0 / 5 on Google Reviews and Facebook Reviews, with a 4.9 / 5 average editor rating.

FAQs About Types of Literature Reviews

More Resources on Literature Reviews

For the full drafting process from research question to final revision, read our guide on how to write a literature review. For a complete section-by-section outline template, see our literature review outline guide. For sample passages from strong reviews across disciplines, see our five annotated literature review examples. For three annotated conclusion examples with a clear formula, see literature review conclusion examples. For the ten most common mistakes with before-and-after fixes, see common literature review mistakes and how to fix them. For APA-specific formatting, see our APA literature review format guide.

About Editor World: Academic Editing Services

Editor World helps academic writers move through the research, writing, and publishing process more easily by providing fast, affordable editing and proofreading services. All editors on the Editor World team are native English speakers from the USA, UK, or Canada who have passed a stringent editing test. Academic editors are available 24/7, 365 days a year. For literature review work, our academic editing services, dissertation editing services, and journal article editing services are the most commonly requested. Our prices are transparent and among the lowest in the industry. Editor World is BBB A+ accredited since 2010 and is woman-founded by Patti Fisher, PhD.

Content reviewed by the Editor World editorial team. Editor World has edited more than 100 million words for 8,000+ clients in 65+ countries since 2010. BBB A+ accredited. 5.0 / 5 Google Reviews. Recommended by the Boston University Economics Department. 100% human editing, no AI at any stage.