A Non-Systematic Literature Review of Literature Reviews: Evaluation of Methods Implemented and Language Used to Describe Systematic and Non-Systematic Literature Reviews

Speaker(s)

Brown AE1, Los AK1, Goldsmith-Martin G1, Phalguni A1, Bowes K1, Briggs JA1, Bajko P1, Kilty RLH1, Khankhel ZS2
1Genesis Research Group, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK, 2Genesis Research Group, Hoboken, NJ, USA

OBJECTIVES: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a widely used research tool with established best practices. Non-systematic literature reviews (nSLRs) encompass a range of review types and implement varying approaches to searching, screening, and data extraction. We sought to collate established guidance for SLRs/nSLRs and to understand whether there was consistency in the language and methods used to describe and conduct published SLRs/nSLRs.

METHODS: MEDLINE (via PubMed) was searched (5 Dec 2023) to identify SLRs/nSLRs published on any topic; records were restricted to those published in English, within the prior week. Title/abstract (TIAB) screening was conducted by a single researcher; includes were tagged as either SLR or nSLR. A random sample of TIAB-level includes (100 SLRs, 100 nSLRs) underwent full-text screening, involving high-level data extraction and conducted by two independent researchers. Separate searches of established evidence synthesis organizations (i.e. Cochrane, University of York, PRISMA), a selection of universities, and other research organizations were also conducted to collate recommendations or established guidance for conducting SLRs and nSLRs.

RESULTS: 1,233/1,271 TIABs identified from MEDLINE met the inclusion criteria. Of the 100 reviews defined by authors as SLRs, 93 followed established guidance; 7 did not clearly report whether established guidance for conducting SLRs was followed. Of the 100 nSLRs, authors defined their research using varying terms: review (n=55), scoping review (n=19), literature review (n=11), narrative review (n=10), comprehensive review (n=2), rapid review (n=1), structured integrative review (n=1), and tutorial review (n=1). Upon review of methods implemented in the nSLRs, 12 utilized methods sufficient for SLR definition; the remaining either leveraged elements of SLR methods or did not clearly report these details.

CONCLUSIONS: There is inconsistency in language used to describe both SLRs and nSLRs, with considerable variability seen in nSLRs. Publications should endeavour to ensure guidance for reporting SLRs are met; nSLR subtypes would benefit from improved description.

Code

SA51

Topic

Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Literature Review & Synthesis

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas