difference between systematic review and literature review

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

• 3 minute read
• 58.4K views

Table of Contents

As a researcher, you may be required to conduct a literature review. But what kind of review do you need to complete? Is it a systematic literature review or a standard literature review? In this article, we’ll outline the purpose of a systematic literature review, the difference between literature review and systematic review, and other important aspects of systematic literature reviews.

What is a Systematic Literature Review?

The purpose of systematic literature reviews is simple. Essentially, it is to provide a high-level of a particular research question. This question, in and of itself, is highly focused to match the review of the literature related to the topic at hand. For example, a focused question related to medical or clinical outcomes.

The components of a systematic literature review are quite different from the standard literature review research theses that most of us are used to (more on this below). And because of the specificity of the research question, typically a systematic literature review involves more than one primary author. There’s more work related to a systematic literature review, so it makes sense to divide the work among two or three (or even more) researchers.

Your systematic literature review will follow very clear and defined protocols that are decided on prior to any review. This involves extensive planning, and a deliberately designed search strategy that is in tune with the specific research question. Every aspect of a systematic literature review, including the research protocols, which databases are used, and dates of each search, must be transparent so that other researchers can be assured that the systematic literature review is comprehensive and focused.

Most systematic literature reviews originated in the world of medicine science. Now, they also include any evidence-based research questions. In addition to the focus and transparency of these types of reviews, additional aspects of a quality systematic literature review includes:

• Clear and concise review and summary
• Comprehensive coverage of the topic
• Accessibility and equality of the research reviewed

Systematic Review vs Literature Review

The difference between literature review and systematic review comes back to the initial research question. Whereas the systematic review is very specific and focused, the standard literature review is much more general. The components of a literature review, for example, are similar to any other research paper. That is, it includes an introduction, description of the methods used, a discussion and conclusion, as well as a reference list or bibliography.

A systematic review, however, includes entirely different components that reflect the specificity of its research question, and the requirement for transparency and inclusion. For instance, the systematic review will include:

• Eligibility criteria for included research
• A description of the systematic research search strategy
• An assessment of the validity of reviewed research
• Interpretations of the results of research included in the review

As you can see, contrary to the general overview or summary of a topic, the systematic literature review includes much more detail and work to compile than a standard literature review. Indeed, it can take years to conduct and write a systematic literature review. But the information that practitioners and other researchers can glean from a systematic literature review is, by its very nature, exceptionally valuable.

This is not to diminish the value of the standard literature review. The importance of literature reviews in research writing is discussed in this article . It’s just that the two types of research reviews answer different questions, and, therefore, have different purposes and roles in the world of research and evidence-based writing.

Systematic Literature Review vs Meta Analysis

It would be understandable to think that a systematic literature review is similar to a meta analysis. But, whereas a systematic review can include several research studies to answer a specific question, typically a meta analysis includes a comparison of different studies to suss out any inconsistencies or discrepancies. For more about this topic, check out Systematic Review VS Meta-Analysis article.

Language Editing Plus

With Elsevier’s Language Editing Plus services , you can relax with our complete language review of your systematic literature review or literature review, or any other type of manuscript or scientific presentation. Our editors are PhD or PhD candidates, who are native-English speakers. Language Editing Plus includes checking the logic and flow of your manuscript, reference checks, formatting in accordance to your chosen journal and even a custom cover letter. Our most comprehensive editing package, Language Editing Plus also includes any English-editing needs for up to 180 days.

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

Step-by-Step Guide: How to Craft a Strong Research Hypothesis

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Covidence website will be inaccessible as we upgrading our platform on Monday 23rd August at 10am AEST, / 2am CEST/1am BST (Sunday, 15th August 8pm EDT/5pm PDT) 

The difference between a systematic review and a literature review

• Best Practice

Home | Blog | Best Practice | The difference between a systematic review and a literature review

Covidence takes a look at the difference between the two

Most of us are familiar with the terms systematic review and literature review. Both review types synthesise evidence and provide summary information. So what are the differences? What does systematic mean? And which approach is best 🤔 ?

‘ Systematic ‘ describes the review’s methods. It means that they are transparent, reproducible and defined before the search gets underway. That’s important because it helps to minimise the bias that would result from cherry-picking studies in a non-systematic way. 

This brings us to literature reviews. Literature reviews don’t usually apply the same rigour in their methods. That’s because, unlike systematic reviews, they don’t aim to produce an answer to a clinical question. Literature reviews can provide context or background information for a new piece of research. They can also stand alone as a general guide to what is already known about a particular topic. 

Interest in systematic reviews has grown in recent years and the frequency of ‘systematic reviews’ in Google books has overtaken ‘literature reviews’ (with all the usual Ngram Viewer warnings – it searches around 6% of all books, no journals). 

Let’s take a look at the two review types in more detail to highlight some key similarities and differences 👀.

🙋🏾‍♂️ What is a systematic review?

Systematic reviews ask a specific question about the effectiveness of a treatment and answer it by summarising evidence that meets a set of pre-specified criteria. 

The process starts with a research question and a protocol or research plan. A review team searches for studies to answer the question using a highly sensitive search strategy. The retrieved studies are then screened for eligibility using the inclusion and exclusion criteria (this is done by at least two people working independently). Next, the reviewers extract the relevant data and assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, the review team synthesises the extracted study data and presents the results. The process is shown in figure 2 .

The results of a systematic review can be presented in many ways and the choice will depend on factors such as the type of data. Some reviews use meta-analysis to produce a statistical summary of effect estimates. Other reviews use narrative synthesis to present a textual summary.

Covidence accelerates the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment stages of your systematic review. It provides simple workflows and easy collaboration with colleagues around the world.

When is it appropriate to do a systematic review?

If you have a clinical question about the effectiveness of a particular treatment or treatments, you could answer it by conducting a systematic review. Systematic reviews in clinical medicine often follow the PICO framework, which stands for:

👦 Population (or patients)

💊 Intervention

💊 Comparison

Here’s a typical example of a systematic review title that uses the PICO framework: Alarms [intervention] versus drug treatments [comparison] for the prevention of nocturnal enuresis [outcome] in children [population]

Key attributes

• Systematic reviews follow prespecified methods
• The methods are explicit and replicable
• The review team assesses the quality of the evidence and attempts to minimise bias
• Results and conclusions are based on the evidence

🙋🏻‍♀️ What is a literature review?

Literature reviews provide an overview of what is known about a particular topic. They evaluate the material, rather than simply restating it, but the methods used to do this are not usually prespecified and they are not described in detail in the review. The search might be comprehensive but it does not aim to be exhaustive. Literature reviews are also referred to as narrative reviews.

Literature reviews use a topical approach and often take the form of a discussion. Precision and replicability are not the focus, rather the author seeks to demonstrate their understanding and perhaps also present their work in the context of what has come before. Often, this sort of synthesis does not attempt to control for the author’s own bias. The results or conclusion of a literature review is likely to be presented using words rather than statistical methods.

When is it appropriate to do a literature review?

We’ve all written some form of literature review: they are a central part of academic research ✍🏾. Literature reviews often form the introduction to a piece of writing, to provide the context. They can also be used to identify gaps in the literature and the need to fill them with new research 📚.

• Literature reviews take a thematic approach
• They do not specify inclusion or exclusion criteria
• They do not answer a clinical question
• The conclusions might be influenced by the author’s own views

🙋🏽 Ok, but what is a systematic literature review?

A quick internet search retrieves a cool 200 million hits for ‘systematic literature review’. What strange hybrid is this 🤯🤯 ?

Systematic review methodology has its roots in evidence-based medicine but it quickly gained traction in other areas – the social sciences for example – where researchers recognise the value of being methodical and minimising bias. Systematic review methods are increasingly applied to the more traditional types of review, including literature reviews, hence the proliferation of terms like ‘systematic literature review’ and many more.

Beware of the labels 🚨. The terminology used to describe review types can vary by discipline and changes over time. To really understand how any review was done you will need to examine the methods critically and make your own assessment of the quality and reliability of each synthesis 🤓.

Review methods are evolving constantly as researchers find new ways to meet the challenge of synthesising the evidence. Systematic review methods have influenced many other review types, including the traditional literature review. 

Covidence is a web-based tool that saves you time at the screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessment stages of your systematic review. It supports easy collaboration across teams and provides a clear overview of task status.

Get a glimpse inside Covidence and how it works

Laura Mellor. Portsmouth, UK

Perhaps you'd also like....

Data Extraction Tip 5: Communicate Regularly

The Covidence Global Scholarship recipients are putting evidence-based research into practice. We caught up with some of the winners to discover the impact of their work and find out more about their experiences.

Data Extraction Tip 4: Extract the Right Amount of Data

Data Extraction Tip 3: Pilot the Template

Better systematic review management, head office, working for an institution or organisation.

Find out why over 350 of the world’s leading institutions are seeing a surge in publications since using Covidence!

Request a consultation with one of our team members and start empowering your researchers: 

By using our site you consent to our use of cookies to measure and improve our site’s performance. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. 

Start your free trial

Arrange a trial for your organisation and discover why FSTA is the leading database for reliable research on the sciences of food and health.

REQUEST A FREE TRIAL

• Thought for Food Blog

What is the difference between a systematic review and a systematic literature review?

By Carol Hollier on 07-Jan-2020 12:42:03

For those not immersed in systematic reviews, understanding the difference between a systematic review and a systematic literature review can be confusing.  It helps to realise that a “systematic review” is a clearly defined thing, but ambiguity creeps in around the phrase “systematic literature review” because people can and do use it in a variety of ways. 

A systematic review is a research study of research studies.  To qualify as a systematic review, a review needs to adhere to standards of transparency and reproducibility.  It will use explicit methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise empirical results from different but similar studies.  The study will be done in stages:  

• In stage one, the question, which must be answerable, is framed
• Stage two is a comprehensive literature search to identify relevant studies
• In stage three the identified literature’s quality is scrutinised and decisions made on whether or not to include each article in the review
• In stage four the evidence is summarised and, if the review includes a meta-analysis, the data extracted; in the final stage, findings are interpreted. [1]

Some reviews also state what degree of confidence can be placed on that answer, using the GRADE scale.  By going through these steps, a systematic review provides a broad evidence base on which to make decisions about medical interventions, regulatory policy, safety, or whatever question is analysed.   By documenting each step explicitly, the review is not only reproducible, but can be updated as more evidence on the question is generated.

Sometimes when people talk about a “systematic literature review”, they are using the phrase interchangeably with “systematic review”.  However, people can also use the phrase systematic literature review to refer to a literature review that is done in a fairly systematic way, but without the full rigor of a systematic review. 

For instance, for a systematic review, reviewers would strive to locate relevant unpublished studies in grey literature and possibly by contacting researchers directly.  Doing this is important for combatting publication bias, which is the tendency for studies with positive results to be published at a higher rate than studies with null results.  It is easy to understand how this well-documented tendency can skew a review’s findings, but someone conducting a systematic literature review in the loose sense of the phrase might, for lack of resource or capacity, forgo that step. 

Another difference might be in who is doing the research for the review. A systematic review is generally conducted by a team including an information professional for searches and a statistician for meta-analysis, along with subject experts.  Team members independently evaluate the studies being considered for inclusion in the review and compare results, adjudicating any differences of opinion.   In contrast, a systematic literature review might be conducted by one person. 

Overall, while a systematic review must comply with set standards, you would expect any review called a systematic literature review to strive to be quite comprehensive.  A systematic literature review would contrast with what is sometimes called a narrative or journalistic literature review, where the reviewer’s search strategy is not made explicit, and evidence may be cherry-picked to support an argument.

FSTA is a key tool for systematic reviews and systematic literature reviews in the sciences of food and health.

The patents indexed help find results of research not otherwise publicly available because it has been done for commercial purposes.

The FSTA thesaurus will surface results that would be missed with keyword searching alone. Since the thesaurus is designed for the sciences of food and health, it is the most comprehensive for the field. 

All indexing and abstracting in FSTA is in English, so you can do your searching in English yet pick up non-English language results, and get those results translated if they meet the criteria for inclusion in a systematic review.

FSTA includes grey literature (conference proceedings) which can be difficult to find, but is important to include in comprehensive searches.

FSTA content has a deep archive. It goes back to 1969 for farm to fork research, and back to the late 1990s for food-related human nutrition literature—systematic reviews (and any literature review) should include not just the latest research but all relevant research on a question. 

You can also use FSTA to find literature reviews.

FSTA allows you to easily search for review articles (both narrative and systematic reviews) by using the subject heading or thesaurus term “REVIEWS" and an appropriate free-text keyword.

On the Web of Science or EBSCO platform, an FSTA search for reviews about cassava would look like this: DE "REVIEWS" AND cassava.

On the Ovid platform using the multi-field search option, the search would look like this: reviews.sh. AND cassava.af.

In 2011 FSTA introduced the descriptor META-ANALYSIS, making it easy to search specifically for systematic reviews that include a meta-analysis published from that year onwards.

On the EBSCO or Web of Science platform, an FSTA search for systematic reviews with meta-analyses about staphylococcus aureus would look like this: DE "META-ANALYSIS" AND staphylococcus aureus.

On the Ovid platform using the multi-field search option, the search would look like this: meta-analysis.sh. AND staphylococcus aureus.af.

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses published before 2011 are included in the REVIEWS controlled vocabulary term in the thesaurus.

An easy way to locate pre-2011 systematic reviews with meta-analyses is to search the subject heading or thesaurus term "REVIEWS" AND meta-analysis as a free-text keyword AND another appropriate free-text keyword.

On the Web of Science or EBSCO platform, the FSTA search would look like this: DE "REVIEWS" AND meta-analysis AND carbohydrate*

On the Ovid platform using the multi-field search option, the search would look like this: reviews .s h. AND meta-analysis.af. AND carbohydrate*.af.  

Related resources:

• Literature Searching Best Practise Guide
• Predatory publishing: Investigating researchers’ knowledge & attitudes
• The IFIS Expert Guide to Journal Publishing

Library image by  Paul Schafer , microscope image by Matthew Waring , via Unsplash.

• FSTA - Food Science & Technology Abstracts
• IFIS Collections
• Resources Hub
• Diversity Statement
• Sustainability Commitment
• Company news
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use for IFIS Collections

Ground Floor, 115 Wharfedale Road,  Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire RG41 5RB

Get in touch with IFIS

© International Food Information Service (IFIS Publishing) operating as IFIS – All Rights Reserved     |     Charity Reg. No. 1068176     |     Limited Company No. 3507902     |     Designed by Blend

Penn State University Libraries

• Home-Articles and Databases
• Asking the clinical question
• PICO & Finding Evidence
• Evaluating the Evidence
• Systematic Review vs. Literature Review
• Fall 2024 Workshops
• Nursing Library Instruction Course
• Ethical & Legal Issues for Nurses
• Useful Nursing Resources
• Writing Resources
• LionSearch and Finding Articles
• The Catalog and Finding Books

Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

It is common to confuse systematic and literature reviews as both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic.  Even with this common ground, both types vary significantly.  Please review the following chart (and its corresponding poster linked below) for the detailed explanation of each as well as the differences between each type of review.

• What's in a name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters by Lynn Kysh, MLIS, University of Southern California - Norris Medical Library
• << Previous: Evaluating the Evidence
• Next: Fall 2024 Workshops >>
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 1:21 PM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/nursing

Literature Review vs Systematic Review

Literature review vs. systematic review, your librarian.

It’s common to confuse systematic and literature reviews because both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic. Regardless of this commonality, both types of review vary significantly. The following table provides a detailed explanation as well as the differences between systematic and literature reviews. 

Kysh, Lynn (2013): Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. [figshare]. Available at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364

Primary vs. Secondary Research

Parts of the Article

• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 2:30 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sjsu.edu/LitRevVSSysRev

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Beginners

Joseph l. mathew.

Department of Pediatrics, Advanced Pediatrics Centre, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India

Systematic reviews involve the application of scientific methods to reduce bias in review of literature. The key components of a systematic review are a well-defined research question, comprehensive literature search to identify all studies that potentially address the question, systematic assembly of the studies that answer the question, critical appraisal of the methodological quality of the included studies, data extraction and analysis (with and without statistics), and considerations towards applicability of the evidence generated in a systematic review. These key features can be remembered as six ‘A’; Ask, Access, Assimilate, Appraise, Analyze and Apply. Meta-analysis is a statistical tool that provides pooled estimates of effect from the data extracted from individual studies in the systematic review. The graphical output of meta-analysis is a forest plot which provides information on individual studies and the pooled effect. Systematic reviews of literature can be undertaken for all types of questions, and all types of study designs. This article highlights the key features of systematic reviews, and is designed to help readers understand and interpret them. It can also help to serve as a beginner’s guide for both users and producers of systematic reviews and to appreciate some of the methodological issues.

Additional material related to this paper is available with the online version at www.indianpediatrics.net

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is a good literature review?
• Types of Literature Reviews
• What are the parts of a Literature Review?
• What is the difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review?

Systematic vs Literature

Systematic reviews and literature reviews are commonly confused. The main difference between the two is that systematic reviews answer a focused question whereas literature reviews contextualize a topic.

Kysh, Lynn (2013): Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. Available at: https://figshare.com/articles/Difference_between_a_systematic_review_and_a_literature_review/766364

New More Help with Writing?

Visit the writing center via lamc tutoring.

Another Writing Tip!

 Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris.  Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998.

• << Previous: What are the parts of a Literature Review?
• Last Updated: Nov 21, 2023 12:49 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lamission.edu/c.php?g=1190903

Los Angeles Mission College. All rights reserved. - 13356 Eldridge Avenue, Sylmar, CA 91342. 818-364-7600 | LACCD.edu | ADA Compliance Questions or comments about this web site? Please leave Feedback

• Our story /
• Teaching & learning /
• The city of Liverpool /
• International university /
• Widening participation
• Campus & facilities
• Our organisation

University Library

• University of Liverpool Library
• Library Help

Q. What is the difference between a systematic review and a systematic literature review?

• 27 About the Library
• 9 Accessibility
• 19 Borrow, renew, return
• 1 Collection Management
• 29 Computers and IT
• 28 Copyright
• 37 Databases
• 11 Disability Support
• 7 Dissertations & Theses
• 13 Electronic resources
• 48 Find Things
• 26 General services
• 35 Help & Support
• 2 Inter-Library Loans
• 13 Journals
• 6 Library facilities
• 7 Library Membership
• 9 Management School
• 3 Newspapers
• 27 Off-Campus
• 78 Online Resources
• 4 Open Access
• 32 Reading Lists
• 40 Referencing
• 5 Registration
• 11 Repository
• 17 Research Support
• 2 Reservations
• 2 Science Fiction
• 11 Search Tools
• 6 Special Collections & Archives
• 3 Standards & Patents
• 16 Student Support
• 7 Study Rooms
• 48 Using the Library
• 11 Visitors

Answered By: Anna Stebbing Last Updated: Feb 09, 2024     Views: 11213

DISCOVER and the Library Catalogue have been replaced by Library Search . We're busy updating all of our links, but in the meantime, please use Library Search when searching for resources or managing your Library Account.

‘Systematic’ describes the review’s methods. It means that they are transparent, reproducible and defined before the search gets underway. That’s important because it helps to minimise the bias that would result from cherry-picking studies in a non-systematic way. 

Literature reviews don’t usually apply the same rigour in their methods. That’s because, unlike systematic reviews, they don’t aim to produce an answer to a clinical question. Literature reviews can provide context or background information for a new piece of research. They can also stand alone as a general guide to what is already known about a particular topic. 

Summary adapted from: Mellor, L. (2022) ‘The difference between a systematic review and a literature review’, https://www.covidence.org/ , no date. Available at: https://www.covidence.org/blog/the-difference-between-a-systematic-review-and-a-literature-review/ (Accessed: 23 May 2022).

Your supervisor may ask you to do a systematic review, when what they actually want you to do is a systematic review of the literature. There are a few key differences:

Summary adapted from: Kysh, L. (2013) ‘What's in a name? The difference between a systematic review and a literature review and why it matters’, https://figshare.com/ , 8 August. Available at:   https://figshare.com/articles/Difference_between_a_systematic_review_and_a_literature_review/766364 

(Accessed: 23 May 2022).

You can find supporting online resources including videos on title Doing a Systematic Review, 2nd edition available as an ebook and as print copies in the library .

Your  Liaison Librarian  can also provide further help and advice.

Links & Files

• What is a literature review and how do I conduct one?
• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Submit a comment below to provide feedback. Yes 2 No 0

Comments (0)

Related questions, browse topics.

• About the Library
• Accessibility
• Borrow, renew, return
• Collection Management
• Computers and IT
• Disability Support
• Dissertations & Theses
• Electronic resources
• Find Things
• General services
• Help & Support
• Inter-Library Loans
• Library facilities
• Library Membership
• Management School
• Online Resources
• Open Access
• Reading Lists
• Referencing
• Registration
• Research Support
• Reservations
• Science Fiction
• Search Tools
• Special Collections & Archives
• Standards & Patents
• Student Support
• Study Rooms
• Using the Library
• Library Website Accessibility Statement
• Customer Charter
• Library Regulations
• Acceptable use of e-Resources
• Service Standards
• Re-use of Public Sector Information
• Victoria Gallery & Museum
• Garstang Museum
• Libraries, Museums and Galleries - Intranet

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Systematic Review vs. Literature Review: Some Essential Differences

Most budding researchers are confused between systematic review vs. literature review. As a PhD student or early career researcher, you must by now be well versed with the fact that literature review is the most important aspect of any scientific research, without which a study cannot be commenced. However, literature review is in itself an ‘umbrella term’, and there are several types of reviews, such as systematic literature reviews , that you may need to perform during your academic publishing journey, based upon their specific relevance to each study.   

Your research goal, approach, and design will finally influence your choice of systematic review vs literature review . Apart from systematic literature review , some other common types of literature review are 1 :   

• Narrative literature review – used to identify gaps in the existing knowledge base  
• Scoping literature review – used to identify the scope of a particular study  
• Integrative literature review – used to generate secondary data that upon integration can be used to define new frameworks and perspectives  
• Theoretical literature review – used to pool all kinds of theories associated with a particular concept  

The most commonly used form of review, however, is the systematic literature review . Compared to the other types of literature reviews described above, this one requires a more rigorous and well-defined approach. The systematic literature review can be divided into two main categories: meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Meta-analysis is related to identifying patterns and relationships within the data, by using statistical procedures. Meta-synthesis on the other hand, is concerned with integrating findings of multiple qualitative research studies, not necessarily needing statistical procedures.  

Table of Contents

Difference between systematic review and literature review

In spite of having this basic understanding, however, there might still be a lot of confusion when it comes to finalizing between a systematic review vs literature review of any other kind. Since these two types of reviews serve a similar purpose, they are often used interchangeably and the difference between systematic review and literature review is overlooked.  In order to ease this confusion and smoothen the process of decision-making it is essential to have a closer look at a systematic review vs. literature review and the differences between them 2.3 :   

  Tips to keep in mind when performing a literature review  

While the above illustrated similarities and differences between systematic review and literature review might be helpful as an overview, here are some additional pointers that you can keep in mind while performing a review for your research study 4 :  

• Check the authenticity of the source thoroughly while using an article in your review.  
• Regardless of the type of review that you intend to perform, i t is important to ensure that the landmark literature, the one that first spoke about your topic of interest, is given prominence in your review. These can be identified with a simple Google Scholar search and checking the most cited articles.  
• Make sure to include all the latest literature that focuses on your research question.   
• Avoid including irrelevant data by revisiting your aims, objectives, and research questions as often as possible during the review process.  
• If you intend to submit your review in any peer-reviewed journal, make sure to have a defined structure based upon your selected type of review .  
• If it is a systematic literature review , make sure that the research question is clear and cri sp and framed in a manner that is subjected to quantitative analysis.  
• If it is a literature review of any other kind, make sure that you include enough checkpoints to minimize biases in your conclusions . You can use an integrative approach to show how different data points fit together, however, it is also essential to mention and describe data that doesn’t fit together in order to produce a balanced review. This can also help identify gaps and pave the way for designing future studies on the topic.   

We hope that the above article was helpful for you in understanding the basics of literature review and to know the use of systemic review vs. literature review.

Q: When to do a systematic review?

A systematic review is conducted to synthesize and analyze existing research on a specific question. It’s valuable when a comprehensive assessment of available evidence is required to answer a well-defined research question. Systematic reviews follow a predefined protocol, rigorous methodology, and aim to minimize bias. They’re especially useful for informing evidence-based decisions in healthcare and policy-making.

Q: When to do a literature review?

A literature review surveys existing literature on a topic, providing an overview of key concepts and findings. It’s conducted when exploring a subject, identifying gaps, and contextualizing research. Literature reviews are valuable at the beginning of a study to establish the research landscape and justify the need for new research.

Q: What is the difference between a literature review and a scoping review?

A literature review summarizes existing research on a topic, while a scoping review maps the literature to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation. While both assess existing literature, a scoping review tends to have broader inclusion criteria and aims to provide an overview of the available research, helping researchers understand the breadth of a topic before narrowing down a research question.

Q: What’ is the difference between systematic Literature Review and Meta Analysis?

A systematic literature review aims to comprehensively identify, select, and analyze all relevant studies on a specific research question using a rigorous methodology. It summarizes findings qualitatively. On the other hand, a meta-analysis is a statistical technique applied within a systematic review. It involves pooling and analyzing quantitative data from multiple studies to provide a more precise estimate of an effect size. In essence, a meta-analysis is a quantitative synthesis that goes beyond the qualitative summary of a systematic literature review.

References:  

• Types of Literature Review – Business Research Methodology. https://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/types-literature-review/  
• Mellor, L. The difference between a systematic review and a literature review. Covidence. https://www.covidence.org/blog/the-difference-between-a-systematic-review-and-a-literature-review \
• Basu, G. SJSU Research Guides – Literature Review vs Systematic Review.  https://libguides.sjsu.edu/LitRevVSSysRev/definitions  
• Jansen, D., Phair, D. Writing A Literature Review: 7 Common (And Costly) Mistakes To Avoid. Grad Coach, June 2021. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/  

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Research in Shorts: R Discovery’s New Feature Helps Academics Assess Relevant Papers in 2mins 

How Does R Discovery’s Interplatform Capability Enhance Research Accessibility 

Literature Review: Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

Systemic Review & Literature Review

A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question

• What's in a name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters.

Evidence Pyramid

The evidence pyramid (image above) visually depicts the evidential strength of different research designs. Studies with the highest internal validity, characterized by a high degree of quantitative analysis, review, analysis, and stringent scientific methodology, are at the top of the pyramid. Observational research and expert opinion reside at the bottom of the pyramid. In evidence-based practice the systematic review is considered the highest level of information and is at the top of the pyramid.  ( The pyramid was produced by  HLWIKI Canada  and is CC).

• << Previous: Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

• What's the difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review?

Research: What's the difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review?

• Which database should I use?
• Why should I access PubMed & Google Scholar from the Library website?
• How do I get an item the Library doesn't hold?
• What's the difference between PubMed, Medline & Embase?
• How can I use images from ClinicalKey in a presentation?
• How do I find?
• How do I search?
• Where do I search?
• PICO to Search Strategy
• Grey Literature
• Specific searches / search filters
• Keeping Up to Date
• What is EBP?
• Types of Studies
• Finding the Evidence
• Appraising the Evidence
• Qualitative Research
• What is a systematic review?
• Systematic Reviews Step-by-Step
• Research Process
• Managing Information
• Publishing Research
• Maximise Your Impact
• Statistics Software
• EndNote This link opens in a new window
• Library training

What is a Systematic Review?

'In basic terms, a systematic review is a protocol-driven, comprehensive literature review, usually designed to answer a specific clinical question'   ( Mayo Clinic Libraries )

For a more detailed definition see Clarifying differences between review designs and methods by David Gough, James Thomas & Sandy Oliver

Also see our  Systematic Reviews page and the   Systematic Review Guide  by Curtin University Library.

Do I want to undertake a Systematic Review?

Before beginning a Systematic Review ask yourself:

• Do I have a clearly defined clinical question with estabalished inclusion and exclusion criteria?
• Do I have a team of at least 3 people?
• Do I have time to go through as many search results as we might find?
• Do I have resources to get foreign-language articles appropriately translated?
• Do I have the statistical resources to analyse the pool data?

If you answered  No to any of the first 4 questions, a traditional literature review will be more appropriate. If you answered No to the last question, a meta-analysis will not be an appropriate methodolgy for your review. For a quick alternative to a systematic review see information about  TRIP Rapid Reviews .

How does a Systematic Review differ from a Literature Review?

(from Curtin University Library's Systematic Review guide )

Systematic Review Standards - Include a Librarian on your team!

• Standards for Systematic Reviews 2010

The Institute of Medicine issued Standards for Systematic Review Teams in 2010, including a set of standards specifically about conducting searches. The first standard for searching (3.1.1) states that systematic review teams should work with a librarian to plan the search strategy .

• << Previous: What's the difference between PubMed, Medline & Embase?
• Next: How can I use images from ClinicalKey in a presentation? >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 1:49 PM
• URL: https://kemh.libguides.com/research

• University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Reviewing Research: Literature Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews
• Differentiating the Three Review Types

Reviewing Research: Literature Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews: Differentiating the Three Review Types

• Framework, Protocol, and Writing Steps
• Working with Keywords/Subject Headings
• Citing Research

The Differences in the Review Types

Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. H ealth Information & Libraries Journal , 26: 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x   The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.

• What Type of Review is Right for you (Cornell University)

Literature Reviews

Literature Review: it is a product and a process.

As a product , it is a carefully written examination, interpretation, evaluation, and synthesis of the published literature related to your topic. It focuses on what is known about your topic and what methodologies, models, theories, and concepts have been applied to it by others.

The process is what is involved in conducting a review of the literature.

• It is ongoing
• It is iterative (repetitive)
• It involves searching for and finding relevant literature.
• It includes keeping track of your references and preparing and formatting them for the bibliography of your thesis

• Literature Reviews (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are a " preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature . Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)." Grant and Booth (2009).

Scoping reviews are not mapping reviews: Scoping reviews are more topic based and mapping reviews are more question based.

• examining emerging evidence when specific questions are unclear - clarify definitions and conceptual boundaries
• identify and map the available evidence
• a scoping review is done prior to a systematic review
• to summarize and disseminate research findings in the research literature
• identify gaps with the intention of resolution by future publications

• Scoping review timeframe and limitations (Touro College of Pharmacy

Systematic Reviews

Many evidence-based disciplines use ‘systematic reviews," this type of review is a specific methodology that aims to comprehensively identify all relevant studies on a specific topic, and to select appropriate studies based on explicit criteria . ( https://cebma.org/faq/what-is-a-systematic-review/ )

• clearly defined search criteria
• an explicit reproducible methodology
• a systematic search of the literature with the defined criteria met
• assesses validity of the findings - no risk of bias
• a comprehensive report on the findings, apparent transparency in the results

• Better evidence for a better world Browsable collection of systematic reviews
• Systematic Reviews in the Health Sciences by Molly Maloney Last Updated Jul 26, 2024 876 views this year
• Next: Framework, Protocol, and Writing Steps >>

MSK Library Blog

Sharing research, resources & news.

Posts are written by library staff and reflect their personal opinions not necessarily those of MSK.

Systematic Review vs. Literature Review…What’s Best for Your Needs?

We at the MSK Library are often called upon to help our researchers with searches. Whether it’s a literature review  or a systematic review depends on the needs of the patron, but what is the difference between these two and when are they needed? Both systematic and literature (or comprehensive) reviews are a gathering of available information on a certain subject. The difference comes in the depth of the research and the reporting of the conclusions. Let’s take a look.

A literature or comprehensive review brings together information on a topic in order to provide an overview of the available literature on a certain subject. Research materials are gathered through searching one or more databases and qualitatively brought together in the review. Literature reviews can be the first step in perusing a topic for a further study to get an idea of the current state of the science available but they can also be their own publication. Complete our  Literature Search form if you would like us to find information on a review or other project you are working in.

Systematic reviews look at a topic more in depth using a scientific method. By looking at not only the available literature, but also theses/dissertations, abstracts/conference proceedings, and other grey literature sources, systematic reviews seek to be all-encompassing in showing results on a topic. To complete a systematic review, a team of researchers select a clinical question to be answered and specify eligibility criteria for their resources before synthesizing the information to answer their question. Multiple databases are searched in order to find every possible article on the topic. Not only are the results of the searches presented, but the search strategy, assessments and interpretations of research are also included in this form of review. Here at MSK, we use the PRISMA Statement  to provide a helpful structure when working on systematic reviews. Take a look at our Systematic Review LibGuide to learn more about this investigation into the literature.

• En español – ExME
• Em português – EME

Traditional reviews vs. systematic reviews

Posted on 3rd February 2016 by Weyinmi Demeyin

Millions of articles are published yearly (1) , making it difficult for clinicians to keep abreast of the literature. Reviews of literature are necessary in order to provide clinicians with accurate, up to date information to ensure appropriate management of their patients. Reviews usually involve summaries and synthesis of primary research findings on a particular topic of interest and can be grouped into 2 main categories; the ‘traditional’ review and the ‘systematic’ review with major differences between them.

Traditional reviews provide a broad overview of a research topic with no clear methodological approach (2) . Information is collected and interpreted unsystematically with subjective summaries of findings. Authors aim to describe and discuss the literature from a contextual or theoretical point of view. Although the reviews may be conducted by topic experts, due to preconceived ideas or conclusions, they could be subject to bias.

Systematic reviews are overviews of the literature undertaken by identifying, critically appraising and synthesising results of primary research studies using an explicit, methodological approach(3). They aim to summarise the best available evidence on a particular research topic.

The main differences between traditional reviews and systematic reviews are summarised below in terms of the following characteristics: Authors, Study protocol, Research question, Search strategy, Sources of literature, Selection criteria, Critical appraisal, Synthesis, Conclusions, Reproducibility, and Update.

Traditional reviews

• Authors: One or more authors usually experts in the topic of interest
• Study protocol: No study protocol
• Research question: Broad to specific question, hypothesis not stated
• Search strategy: No detailed search strategy, search is probably conducted using keywords
• Sources of literature: Not usually stated and non-exhaustive, usually well-known articles. Prone to publication bias
• Selection criteria: No specific selection criteria, usually subjective. Prone to selection bias
• Critical appraisal: Variable evaluation of study quality or method
• Synthesis: Often qualitative synthesis of evidence
• Conclusions: Sometimes evidence based but can be influenced by author’s personal belief
• Reproducibility: Findings cannot be reproduced independently as conclusions may be subjective
• Update: Cannot be continuously updated

Systematic reviews

• Authors: Two or more authors are involved in good quality systematic reviews, may comprise experts in the different stages of the review
• Study protocol: Written study protocol which includes details of the methods to be used
• Research question: Specific question which may have all or some of PICO components (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome). Hypothesis is stated
• Search strategy: Detailed and comprehensive search strategy is developed
• Sources of literature: List of databases, websites and other sources of included studies are listed. Both published and unpublished literature are considered
• Selection criteria: Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Critical appraisal: Rigorous appraisal of study quality
• Synthesis: Narrative, quantitative or qualitative synthesis
• Conclusions: Conclusions drawn are evidence based
• Reproducibility: Accurate documentation of method means results can be reproduced
• Update: Systematic reviews can be periodically updated to include new evidence

Decisions and health policies about patient care should be evidence based in order to provide the best treatment for patients. Systematic reviews provide a means of systematically identifying and synthesising the evidence, making it easier for policy makers and practitioners to assess such relevant information and hopefully improve patient outcomes.

• Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Evidence-Based Approach to the Medical Literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1997; 12(Suppl 2):S5-S14. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.12.s2.1.x. Available from:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497222/
• Rother ET. Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta paul. enferm. [Internet]. 2007 June [cited 2015 Dec 25]; 20(2): v-vi. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-21002007000200001&lng=en. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001
• Khan KS, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2001.

Weyinmi Demeyin

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

No Comments on Traditional reviews vs. systematic reviews

THE INFORMATION IS VERY MUCH VALUABLE, A LOT IS INDEED EXPECTED IN ORDER TO MASTER SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Thank you very much for the information here. My question is : Is it possible for me to do a systematic review which is not directed toward patients but just a specific population? To be specific can I do a systematic review on the mental health needs of students?

Hi Rosemary, I wonder whether it would be useful for you to look at Module 1 of the Cochrane Interactive Learning modules. This is a free module, open to everyone (you will just need to register for a Cochrane account if you don’t already have one). This guides you through conducting a systematic review, with a section specifically around defining your research question, which I feel will help you in understanding your question further. Head to this link for more details: https://training.cochrane.org/interactivelearning

I wonder if you have had a search on the Cochrane Library as yet, to see what Cochrane systematic reviews already exist? There is one review, titled “Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students” which may be of interest: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013684/full You can run searches on the library by the population and intervention you are interested in.

I hope these help you start in your investigations. Best wishes. Emma.

La revisión sistemática vale si hay solo un autor?

HI Alex, so sorry for the delay in replying to you. Yes, that is a very good point. I have copied a paragraph from the Cochrane Handbook, here, which does say that for a Cochrane Review, you should have more than one author.

“Cochrane Reviews should be undertaken by more than one person. In putting together a team, authors should consider the need for clinical and methodological expertise for the review, as well as the perspectives of stakeholders. Cochrane author teams are encouraged to seek and incorporate the views of users, including consumers, clinicians and those from varying regions and settings to develop protocols and reviews. Author teams for reviews relevant to particular settings (e.g. neglected tropical diseases) should involve contributors experienced in those settings”.

Thank you for the discussion point, much appreciated.

Hello, I’d like to ask you a question: what’s the difference between systematic review and systematized review? In addition, if the screening process of the review was made by only one author, is still a systematic or is a systematized review? Thanks

Hi. This article from Grant & Booth is a really good one to look at explaining different types of reviews: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x It includes Systematic Reviews and Systematized Reviews. In answer to your second question, have a look at this Chapter from the Cochrane handbook. It covers the question about ‘Who should do a systematic review’. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-01

A really relevant part of this chapter is this: “Systematic reviews should be undertaken by a team. Indeed, Cochrane will not publish a review that is proposed to be undertaken by a single person. Working as a team not only spreads the effort, but ensures that tasks such as the selection of studies for eligibility, data extraction and rating the certainty of the evidence will be performed by at least two people independently, minimizing the likelihood of errors.”

I hope this helps with the question. Best wishes. Emma.

Subscribe to our newsletter

You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.

Related Articles

What do trialists do about participants who are ‘lost to follow-up’?

Participants in clinical trials may exit the study prior to having their results collated; in this case, what do we do with their results?

Family Therapy approaches for Anorexia Nervosa

Is Family Therapy effective in the treatment of Anorexia Nervosa? Emily summarises a recent Cochrane Review in this blog and examines the evidence.

Antihypertensive drugs for primary prevention – at what blood pressure do we start treatment?

In this blog, Giorgio Karam examines the evidence on antihypertensive drugs for primary prevention – when do we start treatment?

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 3:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

• Manchester Met Library
• Special Collections Museum
• North West Film Archive
• Poetry Library

What is a Systematic Review?

• email us at [email protected]

What is a systematic review?

A systematic review is a firmly structured literature review, undertaken according to a fixed plan, system or method. As such, it is highly focused on a particular and explicit topic area with strict research parameters. Systematic reviews will often have a detailed plan known as a protocol, which is a statement of the approach and methods to be used in the review prior to undertaking it. 

Systematic review methodology is explicit and precise because it aims to minimise bias, thereby enhancing the reliability of any conclusions. It is therefore considered an evidence-based approach. Systematic reviews are commonly used by health professionals, but also policy makers and researchers. 

There is information about the difference between a systematic review and a literature review on this page. If you are undertaking systematic approach to a literature review, however, you might find certain aspects of this guide useful. 

LITERATURE REVIEW VS SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

You can find further information on literature reviews on our  literature reviews page .

How we can help

What we need you to do: .

• Have a firm idea of your research question or area 
• List your main keywords and alternatives. You may want to use a table to organise your keywords. 
• Think about how you will use your keywords to search using connectors such as AND/OR 
• Define what you want to include and exclude from your search 
• Consider where you want to search 
• Run some initial searches and identify any problems or issues you want to discuss 

What your Librarian can help you with:  

• Identifying relevant databases and other subject resources that could be used to supplement your review 
• Demonstrating library resources for use in the review  
• Replicating searches on other databases and resources 
• Reviewing your search strategy/approach 
• Directing you to referencing software support 
• Suggesting ways to save and document your search results 
• Helping to locate difficult to find material, using the  Request It! service
• PREPARATION AND PLANNING
• review types
• SEARCH METHODS
• GREY LITERATURE
• DOCUMENTATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT
• FURTHER INFORMATION AND RESOURCES

Home » Education » Difference Between Literature Review and Systematic Review

Difference Between Literature Review and Systematic Review

Main difference – literature review vs systematic review.

Literature review and systematic review are two scholarly texts that help to introduce new knowledge to various fields. A literature review, which reviews the existing research and information on a selected study area, is a crucial element of a research study. A systematic review is also a type of a literature review. The main difference between literature review and systematic review is their focus on the research question ; a systematic review is focused on a specific research question whereas a literature review is not.

This article highlights,

1. What is a Literature Review?        – Definition, Features, Characteristics

2. What is a Systematic Review?        – Definition, Features, Characteristics

What is a Literature Review

A literature review is an indispensable element of a research study. This is where the researcher shows his knowledge on the subject area he or she is researching on. A literature review is a discussion on the already existing material in the subject area. Thus, this will require a collection of published (in print or online) work concerning the selected research area. In simple terms, a literature is a review of the literature in the related subject area.

A good literature review is a critical discussion, displaying the writer’s knowledge on relevant theories and approaches and awareness of contrasting arguments. A literature review should have the following features (Caulley, 1992)

• Compare and contrast different researchers’ views
• Identify areas in which researchers are in disagreement
• Group researchers who have similar conclusions
• Criticize the methodology
• Highlight exemplary studies
• Highlight gaps in research
• Indicate the connection between your study and previous studies
• Indicate how your study will contribute to the literature in general
• Conclude by summarizing what the literature indicates

The structure of a literature review is similar to that of an article or essay, unlike an annotated bibliography . The information that is collected is integrated into paragraphs based on their relevance. Literature reviews help researchers to evaluate the existing literature, to identify a gap in the research area, to place their study in the existing research and identify future research.

What is a Systematic Review

A systematic review is a type of systematic review that is focused on a particular research question . The main purpose of this type of research is to identify, review, and summarize the best available research on a specific research question. Systematic reviews are used mainly because the review of existing studies is often more convenient than conducting a new study. These are mostly used in the health and medical field, but they are not rare in fields such as social sciences and environmental science.  Given below are the main stages of a systematic review:

• Defining the research question and identifying an objective method
• Searching for relevant data that from existing research studies that meet certain criteria (research studies must be reliable and valid).
• Extracting data from the selected studies (data such as the participants, methods, outcomes, etc.
• Assessing the quality of information
• Analyzing and combining all the data which would give an overall result.

Literature Review is a critical evaluation of the existing published work in a selected research area.

Systematic Review is a type of literature review that is focused on a particular research question.

Literature Review aims to review the existing literature, identify the research gap, place the research study in relation to other studies, to evaluate promising research methods, and to suggest further research.

Systematic Review aims to identify, review, and summarize the best available research on a specific research question.

Research Question

In Literature Review, a r esearch question is formed after writing the literature review and identifying the research gap.

In Systematic Review, a research question is formed at the beginning of the systematic review.

Research Study

Literature Review is an essential component of a research study and is done at the beginning of the study.

Systematic Review is not followed by a separate research study.

Caulley, D. N. “Writing a critical review of the literature.”  La Trobe University: Bundoora  (1992).

“Animated Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?” .  cccrg.cochrane.org .  Cochrane Consumers and Communication . Retrieved 1 June 2016.

Image Courtesy: Pixabay

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Literature Reviews

• Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

• Types of reviews
• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Guide Owner

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

tl;dr  A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

The literature review: Six steps to success

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

• Next: Types of reviews >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 11:40 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

About Systematic Reviews

The Difference Between Narrative Review and Systematic Review

Automate every stage of your literature review to produce evidence-based research faster and more accurately.

Reviews in scientific research are tools that help synthesize literature on a topic of interest and describe its current state. Different types of reviews are conducted depending on the research question and the scope of the review. A systematic review is one such review that is robust, reproducible, and transparent. It involves collating evidence by using all of the eligible and critically appraised literature available on a certain topic. To know more about how to do a systematic review , you can check out our article at the link. The primary aim of a systematic review is to recommend best practices and inform policy development. Hence, there is a need for high-quality, focused, and precise methods and reporting. For more exploratory research questions, methods such as a scoping review are employed. Be sure you understand the difference between a systematic review and a scoping review , if you don’t, check out the link to learn more.

When the word “review” alone is used to describe a research paper, the first thing that should come to mind is that it is a literature review. Almost every researcher starts off their career with literature reviews. To know the difference between a systematic review and a literature review , read on here.  Traditional literature reviews are also sometimes referred to as narrative reviews since they use narrative analysis to synthesize data. In this article, we will explore the differences between a systematic review and a narrative review, in further detail.

Learn More About DistillerSR

(Article continues below)

Narrative Review vs Systematic Review

Both systematic and narrative reviews are classified as secondary research studies since they both use existing primary research studies e.g. case studies. Despite this similarity, there are key differences in their methodology and scope. The major differences between them lie in their objectives, methodology, and application areas.

Differences In Objective

The main objective of a systematic review is to formulate a well-defined research question and use qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze all the available evidence attempting to answer the question. In contrast, narrative reviews can address one or more questions with a much broader scope. The efficacy of narrative reviews is irreplaceable in tracking the development of a scientific principle, or a clinical concept. This ability to conduct a wider exploration could be lost in the restrictive framework of a systematic review.

Differences in Methodology

For systematic reviews, there are guidelines provided by the Cochrane Handbook, ROSES, and the PRISMA statement that can help determine the protocol, and methodology to be used. However, for narrative reviews, such standard guidelines do not exist. Although, there are recommendations available.

Systematic reviews comprise an explicit, transparent, and pre-specified methodology. The methodology followed in a systematic review is as follows,

• Formulating the clinical research question to answer (PICO approach)
• Developing a protocol (with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of primary studies)
• Performing a detailed and broad literature search
• Critical appraisal of the selected studies
• Data extraction from the primary studies included in the review
• Data synthesis and analysis using qualitative or quantitative methods [3].
• Reporting and discussing results of data synthesis.
• Developing conclusions based on the findings.

A narrative review on the other hand does not have a strict protocol to be followed. The design of the review depends on its author and the objectives of the review. As yet, there is no consensus on the standard structure of a narrative review. The preferred approach is the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) [2]. Apart from the author’s preferences, a narrative review structure must respect the journal style and conventions followed in the respective field.

Differences in Application areas

Narrative reviews are aimed at identifying and summarizing what has previously been published. Their general applications include exploring existing debates, the appraisal of previous studies conducted on a certain topic, identifying knowledge gaps, and speculating on the latest interventions available. They are also used to track and report on changes that have occurred in an existing field of research. The main purpose is to deepen the understanding in a certain research area. The results of a systematic review provide the most valid evidence to guide clinical decision-making and inform policy development [1]. They have now become the gold standard in evidence-based medicine [1].

Although both types of reviews come with their own benefits and limitations, researchers should carefully consider the differences between them before making a decision on which review type to use.

• Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. AJN. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.
• Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropratic Medicine 2006;5:101–117.
• Linares-Espinós E, Hernández V, Domínguez-Escrig JL, Fernández-Pello S, Hevia V, Mayor J, et al. Metodología de una revisión sistemática. Actas Urol Esp. 2018;42:499–506.

3 Reasons to Connect

Something old, new, and borrowed . Rise of the systematic reviews

• Published: 24 August 2024

Cite this article

• Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi 1 &
• Ana-Maria Pop   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9958-1391 1  

64 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Systematic reviews and other types of literature reviews are more prevalent in clinical medicine than in other fields. The recurring need for improvement and updates in these disciplines has led to the Living Systematic Review (LSR) concept to enhance the effectiveness of scientific synthesis efforts. While LSR was introduced in 2014, its adoption outside clinical medicine has been limited, with one exception. However, it is anticipated that this will change in the future, prompting a detailed exploration of four key dimensions for LSR development, regardless of the scientific domain. These dimensions include (a) compliance with FAIR principles, (b) interactivity to facilitate easier access to scientific knowledge, (c) public participation for a more comprehensive review, and (d) extending the scope beyond mere updates to living systematic reviews. Each field needs to establish clear guidelines for drafting literature reviews as independent studies, with discussions centring around the central theme of the Living Systematic Review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Aguilar Gómez, F., & Bernal, I. (2023). FAIR EVA: Bringing institutional multidisciplinary repositories into the FAIR picture. Scientific Data . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02652-8

Article   Google Scholar  

Akl, E. A., Meerpohl, J. J., Elliott, J., Kahale, L. A., & Schünemann, H. J. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009

Amaral, O. B. (2022). To fix peer review, break it into stages. Nature, 611 , 637. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03791-5

Breuer, C., Meerpohl, J. J., & Siemens, W. (2022). From standard systematic reviews to living systematic reviews. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat Im Gesundheitswesen, 176 , 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2022.11.007

Dajani, R. (2023). Scientists in diaspora are a powerful resource for their home countries. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03300-2

Eisen, M. B., Akhmanova, A., Behrens, T. E., Harper, D. M., Weigel, D., & Zaidi, M. (2020). Implementing a “publish, then review” model of publishing. eLife, 9 , e64910. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64910

Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., Salanti, G., Meerpohl, J., MacLehose, H., Hilton, J., Tovey, D., Shemilt, I., Thomas, J., Agoritsas, T., Hilton, J., Perron, C., Akl, E., Hodder, R., Pestridge, C., …, Pearson, L. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—The why, what, when, and how. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010

Elliott, J. H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Mavergames, C., & Gruen, R. L. (2014). Living systematic reviews: An emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603

Enck, P. (2018). Living systematic reviews, not only for clinical (placebo) research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 98 , 153–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.001

Gerber, L. R. (2023). Bridging the gap between science and policy for a sustainable future. Nature Water . https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00145-x

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Griebler, U., Dobrescu, A., Ledinger, D., Klingenstein, P., Sommer, I., Emprechtinger, R., Persad, E., Gadinger, A., Trivella, M., Klerings, I., & Nussbaumer-Streit, B. (2023). Evaluation of the interim Cochrane rapid review methods guidance—A mixed-methods study on the understanding of and adherence to the guidance. Research Synthesis Methods . https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1656

Hill, J. E., Harris, C., & Clegg, A. (2023). Methods for using Bing’s AI-powered search engine for data extraction for a systematic review. Research Synthesis Methods, 15 (2), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1689

Kahale, L. A., Piechotta, V., & McKenzie, J. E. (2022). Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs): Protocol [version 2; peer review: 1 approved]. F1000Research . https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75449.2

Macdonald, H., Loder, E., & Abbasi, K. (2020). Living systematic reviews at The BMJ. BMJ, 370 , m2925. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2925

Marshall, I. J., & Wallace, B. C. (2019). Toward systematic review automation: A practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Systematic Reviews . https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9

Norström, A., V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J.-B., Leach, M., …, Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3 , 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Paul, M., & Leeflang, M. M. (2023). Living systematic reviews: Aims and standards. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 30 (3), 265–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2023.08.005

Polonioli, A. (2019). A plea for minimally biased naturalistic philosophy. Synthese, 196 , 3841–3867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1628-0

Polonioli, A. (2020). In search of better science: On the epistemic costs of systematic reviews and the need for a pluralistic stance to literature search. Scientometrics, 122 , 1267–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03333-3

Riley, S. P., Swanson, B. T., Shaffer, S. M., Flowers, D. W., Cook, C. E., & Brismée, J. M. (2023). Why do ‘Trustworthy’ living systematic reviews matter? Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 31 (4), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2023.2229610

Ripberger, J., Bell, A., Fox, A., Forney, A., Livingston, W., Gaddie, C., Silva, C., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (2022). Communicating probability information in weather forecasts: Findings and recommendations from a living systematic review of the research literature. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14 (2), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0034.1

Roche, D. G., Kruuk, L. E. B., Lanfear, R., & Binning, S. A. (2015). Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: How well are we doing? PLoS Biology, 13 (11), e1002295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002295

Saulnier, K. M., Bujold, D., Dyke, S. O. M., Dupras, C., Beck, S., Bourque, G., & Joly, Y. (2019). Benefits and barriers in the design of harmonized access agreements for international data sharing. Scientific Data . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0310-4

Schimidt, L., Mohamed, S., Meader, N., Bacardit, J., & Craig, D. (2023). Automated data analysis of unstructured grey literature in health research: A mapping review. Research Synthesis Methods, 15 (2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1692

Siemieniuk, R. A., Bartoszko, J. J., Zeraatkar, D., Kum, E., Qasim, A., Martinez, J. P. D., Izcovich, A., Lamontagne, F., Han, M. A., Agarwal, A., Agoritsas, T., Azab, M., Bravo, G., Chu, D. K., Couban, R., Devji, T., Escamilla, Z., Foroutan, F., Gao, Y., …, Brignardello-Petersen, R. (2020). Drug treatments for Covid-19: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis BMJ, 370 , m3536. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2980

Simmonds, M., Salanti, G., McKenzie, J., & Elliott, J. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.008

Siontis, K. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Replication, duplication, and waste in a quarter million systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 11 (12), e005212. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005212

Thibault, R. T., Amaral, O. B., Argolo, F., Bandrowski, A. E., Davidson, A. R., & Drude, N. I. (2023). Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem. PLoS Biology, 21 (10), e3002362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002362

Thomas, J., Noel-Storr, A., Marshall, I., Wallace, B., McDonald, S., Mavergames, C., Glasziou, P., Shemilt, I., Synnot, A., Turner, T., & Elliott, J. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011

Thorp, H. H. (2023). Correction is courageous. Science, 382 , 743–743. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adm8205

Turk, V. (2023). Protect the ‘right to science’ for people and the planet. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03332-8

Turner, T., Lavis, J. N., Grimshaw, J. M., Green, S., & Elliott, J. (2023). Living evidence and adaptive policy: Perfect partners? Health Research Policy and Systems . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01085-4

Uttley, L., Quintana, D. S., Montgomery, P., Carroll, C., Page, M. J., Falzon, L., Sutton, A., & Moher, D. (2023). The problems with systematic reviews: A living systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 156 , 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.011

Vallet, A., Locatelli, B., Valdivia-Díaz, M., Vallet, A., Locatelli, B., Valdivia-Díaz, M., Conde, Y. Q., Matencio García, G., Criales, A. R., Huamanñahui, F. V., Criales, S. R., Makowski, D., & Lavorel, S. (2023). Knowledge coproduction to improve assessments of nature’s contributions to people. Conservation Biology . https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14182

van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? Nature, 623 , 466–467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x

Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I., Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., ..., Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3 , 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank both reviewers for their useful and precious suggestions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai, Facultatea de Geografie, Centrul de Geografie Regională, Str. Clinicilor 5-7, 400006, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi & Ana-Maria Pop

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi—substantial contribution to conception and design, acquisition and interpretation of data, writing the comment, revision; Ana-Maria Pop—interpretation of data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hognogi, GG., Pop, AM. Something old, new, and borrowed . Rise of the systematic reviews. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05133-w

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2024

Accepted : 02 August 2024

Published : 24 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05133-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Living systematic reviews
• Scientific knowledge
• FAIR principles
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How Literature Management Software Streamlines and Future-Proofs Systematic Review Workflows

The volume of published scientific and medical articles has exploded over the years, making the systematic literature review (SLR) process challenging for research organizations. They must review tens of thousands of research findings, often using disparate tools and manual workflows.

The National Library of Medicine reports that SLRs can cost research organizations hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. That’s because completing manual SLR workflows increases the chances of errors and slows internal productivity.

Literature management software (LMS) solutions can make the stages of a systematic review workflow more affordable, efficient, organized, and accurate. In this guide, we’ll explain how LMS platforms help you quickly find the right literature in the review process and set your business up for long-term success.

What is a Systematic Literature Review workflow?

Systematic literature review workflows are rigorous, evidence-based processes involving multiple subject matter experts within an organization. These experts meticulously evaluate research findings to align and agree on answers to specific research questions. Whether SLR workflows are manual or automated using literature review management software, they follow strict methodologies to ensure reproducible and unbiased outcomes.

How Literature Management Software Improves Workflows

Literature management software for systematic reviews can help organizations streamline and future-proof the process by:

Automating manual or disparate tools

Excel spreadsheets are often used to track and organize documents in manual systematic literature processes. Businesses also import documents from one platform into another to evaluate the relevance of research findings at different literature review stages. This complex and time-consuming workflow is no longer sustainable, given that thousands of articles come out weekly.

Integrated systematic review automation tools like ReadCube streamline the SLR process—from identifying and retrieving documents to managing references and shared libraries, screening and reviewing references, and creating reports using PRISMA charts and citation software.

Decreasing internal costs

Organizations save money by reducing the time investment required to complete the process— while boosting team productivity—when they automate and integrate the multi-stage workflow using one systematic review tool.

Facilitating team collaboration

Multiple reviewers may have conflicting opinions about whether an article should be included in a systematic literature review. Research workflow management solutions make it easy to spot conflicts and automatically flag them to reviewers, allowing teams to connect and make a group decision while ensuring productive collaboration.

Teams can also create and share project and reference libraries within some LMS platforms. Likewise, team leads can assign specific projects and literature reviews to colleagues directly from the LMS solution. Once a literature review is complete, team leads can email included references directly to colleagues to create reports and presentations.

Reducing the chance of errors

LMS solutions streamline and simplify industry-standard review procedures, reducing the risk of errors and improving team efficiencies. The accuracy and scalability provided by a single automated SLR workflow can also improve the discovery of novel solutions, such as drug discovery in the pharmaceutical sector.

Leveraging AI developments

Some LMS solutions now offer configurable AI capabilities to future-proof and support organizations with increasing volumes of information and stringent regulatory demands.

The Future of Systematic Literature Reviews

LMS platforms help you navigate the challenges of increasing article volumes and regulatory demands, ensuring better systematic literature review management. Literature Review by ReadCube is a systematic, simplified end-to-end platform that can streamline these workflows with efficiency and automation to set your business up for long-term success.

The ReadCube platform also improves team collaboration and reduces systematic literature review process errors. Furthermore, ReadCube customer support can help businesses set up custom workflows to optimize their systematic literature review software outcomes.

Download ReadCube’s “ Future of Systematic Literature Reviews ” white paper to learn more.

Published 08/29/2024 by Rachel Segal in Blog ,

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Exploring the Relationship between Inhaled Corticosteroid Usage, Asthma Severity, and Sleep-Disordered Breathing: A Systematic Literature Review

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Surgery, Dentistry, Pediatrics and Gynecology, University of Verona, 37100 Verona, Italy.
• 2 Pediatric Sleep Disorders Center, Division of Pediatrics, "F. Del Ponte" Hospital, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy.
• PMID: 39194421
• DOI: 10.3390/arm92040029

(1) Background: Sleep-disordered breathing and asthma are often interrelated. Children and adults with asthma are more susceptible to sleep apnea. Inhaled corticosteroids effectively reduce inflammation and prevent structural changes in the airways. Objective: to explore the existing literature to determine whether inhaled corticosteroids play a role in sleep-disordered breathing in patients with asthma. (2) Methods: We conducted a thorough search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for English-language articles published up to 12 May 2024. We utilized the ROBINS-E tool to assess the risk of bias. (4) Conclusions: 136 articles were discerned upon conducting the literature search. A total of 13 articles underwent exhaustive full-text scrutiny, resulting in 6 being considered non-relevant. The remaining seven articles, assessed for eligibility, were incorporated into the final analysis. Five studies were identified in adults and two in children. In adult patients, inhaled corticosteroids, especially at high doses, appear to increase the risk of sleep apnea in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, the properties of inhaled corticosteroids, such as particle size, may impact the risk of developing sleep apnea. In children, the severity of asthma is a key factor affecting the prevalence of sleep apnea, whereas inhaled corticosteroids appear to be a less significant risk factor compared to adults. All of the studies reviewed were classified as having a high risk of bias or some concerns regarding bias. Each study revealed at least one type of bias that raised notable concerns. This research highlights a complex interaction between the use of inhaled corticosteroids, the severity of asthma, and the onset of sleep apnea. Additional research is necessary to investigate these relationships further.

Keywords: asthma; fluticasone propionate; inhaled corticosteroid; obstructive sleep apnea; sleep-disordered breathing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

• Search in MeSH
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.