https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3272-6565
Figures
Abstract
Objectives
To systematically explore the concepts, types, and methodologies related to literature reviews and evidence synthesis.
Methods
We conducted a scoping review using PubMed, Embase, Biblioteca Virtual da Saúde, grey literature, and websites of key international and national institutions, including the Cochrane Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute, Center for Reviews and Dissemination, Campbell Collaboration, and REBRATS, with searches completed through November 13, 2024. Studies were included if they identified or proposed theories and/or methodologies for evidence synthesis at international or national levels, with eligibility limited to studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese and no restrictions on publication year. Title and abstract screening was conducted independently by ten reviewers working in pairs, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts as needed, and full-text copies of potentially relevant articles were retrieved for further analysis.
Results
The review included 99 studies employing a variety of evidence synthesis methods. A total of 71 terminologies for types of evidence synthesis were identified and grouped by conceptual and methodological similarities, resulting in 16 categories of evidence synthesis, each with clear differences in concepts and methods.
Conclusions
The lack of standardization in defining and classifying review types challenges the scientific community by hindering study comparisons and appropriate methodology selection. Future research should explore the relationships between different review types and their outcomes, as well as the applicability of new methodologies across various fields.
Citation: Trapé CA, Sivalli Campos CM, de Freitas Oliveira C, Tavares da Silva JGS, Uchimura LYT, Figueiró MF, et al. (2025) Scoping review of evidence synthesis: Concepts, types and methods. PLoS One 20(5): e0323555. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323555
Editor: André Luis C. Ramalho, University of Porto Faculty of Medicine: Universidade do Porto Faculdade de Medicina, PORTUGAL
Received: December 13, 2024; Accepted: April 10, 2025; Published: May 16, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Trapé et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This review was funded by the Institutional Development Program of the Brazilian National Health System (Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde - PROADI-SUS), number 25000.010649/2020-11.The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Introduction
In a context where scientific production is growing exponentially, literature reviews and evidence synthesis play a critical role due to their summarizing nature. These tools follow rigorous and transparent methods in their development, ensuring reliable information. As such, they are valuable for those beginning their research and anyone interested in a specific topic who does not have time to absorb the entirety of scientific literature.
As literature reviews and evidence synthesis have become established as research methods, various initiatives have been developed by international and national institutions to standardize their processes through guidelines, manuals, and standards. For instance, international organizations such as the Cochrane Collaboration and the Joanna Briggs Institute, among others, and in Brazil, initiatives by the Ministry of Health, the Brazilian Network for Health Technology Assessment (REBRATS), and the EvipNet Network promote and publish methodological guidelines for the preparation of reviews and evidence synthesis.
In recent years, mainly since 2010, there has been a significant increase in literature review studies, types of literature synthesis, and materials developed for their execution, such as checklists of mandatory items and methodological assessment tools. There is considerable diversity in the literature on this topic.
Grant and Booth [1], in his review of literature review types, highlights that “What remains largely unknown are the subtle variations in the degree of process and rigor within the different types of review.” This scenario demanded the identification of a broader range of review types, opening the possibility of summarizing case studies, qualitative research, and even theoretical and conceptual results, both published and unpublished. According to Sarrami-Foroushani et al. [2], who also conducted a review on types of literature reviews, reflecting on various definitions provided in the literature, it becomes clear that, for a literature review to be effective, it must possess the following characteristics: (a) Provide strong support for a research topic and be necessary in a given field; (b) Use well-defined quality data for synthesis and analysis; (c) Select an appropriate research methodology; (d) Contribute to the development of a new scope of practice; (e) Highlight the need for further investigation into previously unexplored areas of interest.
However, while various methods for synthesizing evidence have been proposed, a comprehensive understanding of the available options and their appropriate applications is essential for researchers. This scoping review addresses this gap by systematically exploring the concepts, types, and methodologies associated with literature reviews and evidence synthesis.
Materials and methods
A scoping review was conducted to map theoretical/methodological studies on methods, concepts, and types of literature reviews and evidence synthesis. This approach is particularly effective for mapping literature on broad topics and in fields with limited scientific output. It also facilitates the identification of key concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps by including a diverse range of studies, including theoretical, qualitative, quantitative, and review-based research [3,4].
The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist [5], published by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The protocol for this review is registered on the Zenodo. Research ethics approval was not required for this study, as it is a summary of already published literature. Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Inclusion criteria
The review encompassed theoretical-methodological studies, literature reviews, grey literature, and guidelines that identified or proposed a theory and/or methodology for evidence synthesis at any level of scope (international and national). Only studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, with no year of publication restrictions, were included. The following types of studies were included: literature reviews and guidelines that reported on types of synthesis, methodologies, and concepts.
Exclusion criteria
Studies that used a literature review as a methodology to review a research object and did not report any method, concept, or define the type of synthesis were excluded.
Search strategies
We searched the following electronic databases to identify published sources: PubMed, Embase, and Biblioteca Virtual da Saúde. Grey literature and websites of international and national institutions (Cochrane Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute, Center for Reviews and Dissemination, Campbell Collaboration, and REBRATS) that are references in methodologies for evidence synthesis, which conceptualized, analyzed, or proposed methods for conducting literature reviews and evidence synthesis were also included in the search.
The search was conducted on November 13, 2024. Studies of any design which examined checking reference list as a search method. Subject descriptors, synonyms, and keywords were used to compose the search sets in the defined information sources. The search strategies used for each database and their corresponding results can be found in S1 Appendix.
Study selection
We examined the titles and abstracts obtained from searches of electronic databases and retrieved full-text copies of potentially relevant articles. We conducted screening for relevance using an internet-based and secured. These steps were performed using the Rayyan software by pairs of independent reviewers, with the participation of a third reviewer to resolve conflicts when necessary.
Data extraction
Data extraction was performed by pairs, with one researcher extracting and another checking the extracted data, using a standardized data extraction form a priori. We noted information pertaining to the study design; objective of the synthesis methodology; concept/definition of the evidence synthesis methodology addressed in the publication; proposal for an update/new methodology; steps in conducting the methodology; and steps reported in the study and their brief description (protocol development, strategy for developing and/or formulating the research question, data sources and search conduct, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and risk of bias, confidence assessment of evidence, synthesis format of findings, other methodological steps, limitations of the synthesis method).
Critical quality appraisal
In scoping reviews, methodological quality is not assessed a priori, as they do not aim to synthesize results or identify the risk of bias [4].
Data analysis
We summarized all relevant data from non-comparative studies descriptively, emphasizing the limitations of the study designs on the interpretations of findings. Given the theoretical nature of this scoping review, the findings were described and analyzed in terms of the concepts, types, and methods of evidence synthesis [4].
Results
A search of the information sources yielded 41, 543 studies, and after removing duplicates, 28, 045 were screened by title and abstract. 114 studies were selected for full-text review, and of these, 99 were included. We summarized all the results of the study selection process in Fig 1 using PRISMA flow diagram.
Adapted from: Page et al. [6].
A significant increase in the number of publications on this topic has been observed over the years. From 1995 to 2009, a total of 15 studies were published, followed by a substantial rise beginning in 2010, reaching a total of 84 studies by 2024. Regarding the country of affiliation of the first author, among the studies that reported this information, the majority originated from Brazil, followed by Canada, Australia, and the United States of America (USA).
From the 99 studies included a total of 71 distinct nomenclatures for types of evidence synthesis were identified, which were subsequently regrouped into 16 categories based on similar concepts and methods (Table 1). The detailed characteristics of these studies are provided in S2 Appendix. Excluded studies and their reasons are listed in S3 Appendix.
Inventory of references [7,8], summary of abstracts [7], rapid reviews [1,7–18] and, technical-scientific report [7,19] represent efficient strategies for synthesizing evidence in time-constrained contexts. While reference inventory primarily focus on cataloging relevant literature [7,8], summary of abstracts, rapid reviews and technical-scientific report employ streamlined methodologies to expedite the synthesis process [20,21]. These methods are best suited for providing an initial overview of the evidence landscape, particularly in scenarios like public health emergencies and policy formulation.
Inventory of references refers to a compilation of existing literature without formal synthesis or critical appraisal, examples include the list of references [7,8]. A key characteristic is the absence of any analysis or interpretation of the included studies. They might be simple lists of references or more structured databases with basic bibliography on specific information [7,8]. Summary of abstracts often involve theme categorization based only from the abstracts of included scientific studies, providing a structured approach to identifying key findings [7]. For example a table summarizing the primary outcomes reported in abstracts of clinical trials investigating specific drug.
Rapid reviews utilize various techniques, such as narrowing the scope of the research question, limiting languages, and selectively targeting specific databases, to accelerate the evidence synthesis process [1,7–16,18,20,21]. They aim to provide a more comprehensive synthesis than a summary of abstracts, but may still compromise comprehensiveness and depth compared to full systematic reviews.
A technical-scientific report is a rapid synthesis that integrates economic, regulatory, and health technology assessment (HTA) information to support decision-making. It provides timely evidence to inform policy and practice decisions on health technologies [7,19]. A defining feature is their focus on providing actionable recommendations, for example a report evaluating the cost-effectiveness and safety of a new medical device for a national health system.
Evidence maps, also referred to as systematic maps, are structured or graphical representations of available research within a specific field. These methods prioritize categorization and visualization over synthesis, focusing on mapping the distribution of studies rather than critically appraising or integrating their findings [1,13,22–26]. Among the various evidence synthesis methods, evidence maps are the only type that offer a unique framework for visually representing the evidence landscape within a specific sector or topic area [1,13,22–27]. They are typically structured in a matrix format, with columns and rows outlining key interventions, outcomes, and study characteristics. As a knowledge translation tool, they support decision-making by highlighting both effective and ineffective interventions, while also pointing to areas that need further high-quality research [1,13,22–26].
A scoping review also serves to map the available evidence but follow a more rigorous methodology and a detailed analysis of study results. Unlike evidence maps, scoping reviews systematically compile data from individual studies, providing a comprehensive overview that helps identify specific topics and knowledge gaps that require further investigation [1–3,7,13,15,27–39]. They help identify key concepts, research trends, and knowledge gaps that require further investigation.
Although they lay a foundation for future investigations, they do not assess the risk of bias in the included evidence and therefore cannot guarantee evidence quality or support clinical recommendations based on their findings [1–3,7,13,15,27–30,32,34–40]. Scoping reviews often use the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) acronym to define the scope of the review and structure the analysis [25].
Critical reviews offer in-depth analyses of existing scientific literature on a specific topic. They employ predefined criteria to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence, aiming to identify research gaps, formulate hypotheses or propose new theoretical models. A defining characteristic is the emphasis on critical reading, data extraction, and structured reporting, rather than adherence to explicit search, synthesis, or analysis methods [1,5,13,37,39]. Narrative reviews, similarly, synthesize information from existing literature, but take a broader perspective and may not employ a rigorous systematic methodology [1,5,13,22].
While valuable, both critical [1,5,13,37,39] and narrative reviews [1,5,13,22,37,39,41–47] often lack the methodological rigor of systematic reviews. The absence of explicit methodological guidelines can lead to inconsistencies in the selection and interpretation of evidence, making it difficult to assess the overall quality of the review. This limitation can hinder the reproducibility of findings and make it challenging to draw definitive conclusions based on the evidence presented.
A review of systematic reviews (also known as an “umbrella review”) synthesizes multiple systematic reviews to provide a comprehensive examination of interventions across different conditions, outcomes, or settings. This approach is particularly useful for well-studied topics, offering insights into common challenges and existing guidelines [1,13–15,32,33,37,40,48–51]. Integrative reviews, in contrast, synthesize evidence from diverse sources, including both qualitative and quantitative studies, to provide a holistic understanding of a phenomenon. They are particularly useful for exploring complex concepts and identifying knowledge gaps [5,13,22,40,46,47,52–57]. The methodologies of systematic, integrative, mixed-methods, quantitative, and qualitative reviews, while underpinned by a shared commitment to rigor, are adaptable to the specific demands of different research questions. While all systematic reviews adhere to rigorous methodological principles, they diverge in their approaches to data synthesis [1,13–15,28,33,37,40,48–51]. Mixed methods systematic reviews specifically combine quantitative and qualitative data to offer a more comprehensive understanding [1,5,14,22,40,46,57–61]. On the other hand, quantitative systematic reviews focus exclusively on numerical data, aiming to quantify the magnitude of effects providing structured methodologies to evaluate prevalence, diagnostic accuracy, and intervention effectiveness [1,15,19,27,40,41,43,46,47,60,62–84]. Conversely, qualitative systematic reviews delve into the subjective experiences and perspectives captured in textual data. These distinct approaches, while complementary, serve different purposes and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of research topics [1,14,34,46,67,85].
Several specialized review types further refine the evidence synthesis landscape. In economic evaluation reviews, evidence synthesis is conducted to determine the most accurate estimates of health outcomes while considering both costs and health impacts. When analyzing intervention prioritization, budgetary implications, and resource allocation, the performance of a specific technology is a key factor [7,67,86].
Text and opinion reviews focus on the qualitative analysis of texts, documents, and reports to understand the context and generate theories [42,67,87,88]. They delve into the nuances of language and discourse to explore perspectives and interpretations. Realist reviews seek to identify the mechanisms and contexts through which interventions work, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis [5,37,39,89,90]. For example, a review examining the implementation of a school-based health promotion program, exploring how the program works in different school settings and for different student populations. Living systematic reviews, apart from other types of reviews, is their continuous updating process, integrating new evidence as it becomes available to ensure that findings remain current and relevant [91].
Finally, evidence synthesis for policy aims to synthesize the best available evidence to inform decision-making, using both quantitative and qualitative data [7,19,92]. Although each approach has its specific focus, they complement each other and can be used in combination to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a given topic. The choice of the most appropriate approach will depend on the research objective and research questions.
Discussion
This scoping review expands upon existing typologies of evidence synthesis types by including a broader range of review and synthesis types beyond traditional literature reviews. Scoping reviews are particularly valuable in areas with limited scientific output, as they provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence and identify knowledge gaps.
The analysis of 94 studies revealed the diversity of evidence synthesis methods, with no single study encompassing all identified types. This highlights the need for a comprehensive typology to guide researchers in selecting appropriate methods. We described the concept and steps reported by the authors in the studies, providing researchers and anyone interested in the topic with an overview of what each type of review and synthesis entails and its applicability.
Among all the methods, rapid synthesis is a time-efficient approach to evidence synthesis that employs strategies to reduce the execution time across various stages, such as study identification and methodological quality assessment. However, the specific definition and timeline for rapid synthesis can vary, as evidenced by the diverse terminology used in the literature.
In summary, this review identified 74 terminologies for types of evidence synthesis, which were grouped by similarity of concept and method, resulting in 16 categories of evidence synthesis types due to clear differences in concepts and methods for each one. Categorization is only useful when supported by sufficient consensus or official guidance to remove ambiguity in methods and processes. In 2009, the typology published by Grant and Booth, with 14 types of reviews, highlighted “frequent inconsistencies or overlaps between the descriptions of nominally different review types” [1]. We observed the same in our scoping review.
In 2012, Gough et al. provided clarifications between different review designs and methods but did not offer a taxonomy of review types. The rationale for this was that, in the field of evidence synthesis, “the rate of development of new review approaches is too fast and the overlap of approaches is too great for this to be useful” [22].
According to Munn et al. [67], the application of evidence can be significantly hindered when it does not align with the situations professionals (or guideline developers) face. Therefore, selecting an appropriate review type that addresses relevant clinical and policy questions is essential.
Various factors may prompt an author to conduct a review, with or without a clearly defined clinical or policy question from the outset. Understanding the different review types and the questions they are designed to answer is important to a review’s success [67].
Selecting the appropriate review type poses a challenge for researchers due to the wide variety of available methodologies. The methodological strengths and limitations of each approach depend largely on the research objectives. When a rapid response to urgent question is required, an Inventory of references or a Summary of abstracts may be appropriate. However, these methods often compromise the scope and depth of analysis. To mitigate this limitation, a rapid review can be conducted, as it employs strategies to streamline the search process while maintaining a structured quality assessment of included studies.
For researchers seeking a broader scope with greater methodological rigor, Evidence maps, Scoping reviews or mixed methods reviews, may be suitable. However these approaches typically require more time, particularly if a formal quality assessment of included studies is necessary, as in the case of Systematic review and Reviews of Systematic reviews.
In qualitative research, when the objective is to contextualize a topic, develop theoretical constructs, or aggregate predefined concepts without a strict requirement for explicit synthesis and analytical methods, Critical Reviews, Narrative Reviews, or Integrative Reviews may be appropriate.
Certain research questions necessitate specific review methodologies. For instance, when conducting a technological assessment of a drug, technique, or medical device in conjunction with economic evaluations to determine cost-effectiveness, a Technical-Scientific report may be the most suitable approach. If a more rigorous methodological framework is required for economic analyses, an Economic Evaluation review should be considered. When analyzing interventions or programs that involve multiple interacting factors, a Realist review is particularly valuable. Additionally, if the research aims to complement empirical evidence with expert insights and professional experience, a Text and Opinion review can be utilized.
Further details on the characteristics, appropriate applications, methodological stages, data extraction and analysis and available guidelines for using synthesis and/or examples of synthesis can be found in S2 Appendix.
Thus, decision-making informed by scientific evidence requires studies with a clear definition of the type of evidence synthesis and the steps to be developed, in accordance with the time and resources available.
Given the exploratory nature of this study, the search for published literature was constrained by language restrictions and database limitations, potentially limiting the overall comprehensiveness of the findings.
Conclusions
The lack of standardization in the definition and classification of review types poses a significant challenge for the scientific community. Our analysis revealed a wide variety of terminologies and methodologies, which can hinder comparisons between studies and make it difficult to select the most appropriate review type. To address this issue, we propose the development of standardized guidelines that establish clear, universally accepted criteria for defining and classifying review types. These guidelines should outline key characteristics, methodologies, and appropriate use cases for each review type, ensuring greater consistency in research practices. Additionally, we encourage the scientific community to collaborate in creating a consensus-based glossary of terms and definitions for different types of reviews.
Also, we propose the development of a structured framework for defining and classifying review types, based on: standardization, applicability, and adaptability. Standardization involves creating clear, universally accepted criteria that define the scope, methodology, and expected outcomes of each review type. Applicability ensures that the classification system is practical and useful for researchers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. Adaptability recognizes that the field is constantly evolving and requires a flexible structure that can integrate new methodologies as they emerge.
A clear and consistent classification is essential to assist healthcare professionals and decision-makers in identifying the most relevant evidence for their needs. Investing in training programs for researchers and healthcare professionals is important to ensure they understand the nuances and applications of different review types. Future research could explore the relationship between different review types and their outcomes, as well as investigating the applicability of these methodologies in various fields.
Supporting information
S2 Appendix. Characteristics for each method.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323555.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
With thanks to Alanis Amorim Angotti, Bruna Carolina de Araujo and Denila Bueno Silva for their assistance in screening of literature and data extraction.
References
- 1. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108. pmid:19490148
- 2. Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D, Clay-Williams R, Braithwaite J. Scoping meta-review: introducing a new methodology. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8(1):77–81. pmid:25041546
- 3. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
- 4. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):953–68. pmid:35102103
- 5. Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Antony J, Cogo E, MacDonald H, Lillie E, et al. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:19–28. pmid:26891949
- 6. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. pmid:33782057
- 7.
Brasil. Serviço de produção de evidências para apoio à tomada de decisão: portfólio de produtos. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde. Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia; 2019. Available from: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/servico_producao_apoio_evidencias_tomada_decisao_portifolio_produtos.pdf
- 8.
Hartling L, Guise J-M, Kato E, Anderson J, Aronson N, Belinson S, et al. EPC Methods: An Exploration of Methods and Context for the Production of Rapid Reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK274092/
- 9. Tapia-Benavente L, Vergara-Merino L, Garegnani LI, Ortiz-Muñoz L, Loézar Hernández C, Vargas-Peirano M. Rapid reviews: definitions and uses. Medwave. 2021;21(1):e8090. pmid:33755038
- 10. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):83. pmid:27884208
- 11. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224. pmid:26377409
- 12. Silva MT, Silva EN da, Barreto JOM. Rapid response in health technology assessment: a Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):51. pmid:29884121
- 13. Mota de Sousa LM, Furtado Firmino C, Alves Marques-Vieira CM, Silva Pedro Severino S, Castelão Figueira Carlos Pestana H. Revisões da literatura científica: tipos, métodos e aplicações em enfermagem. RPER. 2018;1(1):45–55.
- 14. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202–22. pmid:31541534
- 15.
Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD); 2009 Jan p. 294. Available from: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf
- 16. Speckemeier C, Niemann A, Wasem J, Bucherger B, Neusser S. Methodological guidance for rapid reviews in healthcare: a scoping review. Res Synth Methods. 2022.
- 17. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13–22. pmid:33068715
- 18. Varker T, Forbes D, Dell L, Weston A, Merlin T, Hodson S, et al. Rapid evidence assessment: increasing the transparency of an emerging methodology. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015;21(6):1199–204. pmid:26123092
- 19.
Brasil. Diretrizes metodológicas: elaboração de pareceres técnico-científicos. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde. Departamento de Gestão e Incorporação de Tecnologias e Inovação em Saúde; 2021 p. 122. Available from: https://www.gov.br/conitec/pt-br/midias/artigos_publicacoes/diretrizes/diretrizes_metodologicas_ptc.pdf
- 20. Smela B, Toumi M, Świerk K, Francois C, Biernikiewicz M, Clay E, et al. Rapid literature review: definition and methodology. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2023;11(1):2241234. pmid:37533549
- 21. Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Devane D, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ. 2024;384:e076335. pmid:38320771
- 22. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1:28. pmid:22681772
- 23. Snilstveit B, Vojtkova M, Bhavsar A, Stevenson J, Gaarder M. Evidence & Gap Maps: A tool for promoting evidence informed policy and strategic research agendas. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:120–9. pmid:27387966
- 24. White H, Albers B, Gaarder M, Kornør H, Littell J, Marshall Z, et al. Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. Campbell Syst Rev. 2020;16(4):e1125. pmid:37016607
- 25. Khalil H, Tricco AC. Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:175–82. pmid:35636593
- 26. Campbell F, Tricco AC, Munn Z, Pollock D, Saran A, Sutton A, et al. Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the “Big Picture” review family. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):45. pmid:36918977
- 27. Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, Young ME. Knowledge Syntheses in Medical Education: Demystifying Scoping Reviews. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):161–6. pmid:27782918
- 28. Khalil H, Peters MD, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Alexander L, McInerney P, et al. Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:156–60. pmid:33122034
- 29. Westphaln KK, Regoeczi W, Masotya M, Vazquez-Westphaln B, Lounsbury K, McDavid L, et al. From Arksey and O’Malley and Beyond: Customizations to enhance a team-based, mixed approach to scoping review methodology. MethodsX. 2021;8:101375. pmid:34430271
- 30. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. pmid:26134548
- 31. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53. pmid:16268861
- 32. Pollock D, Davies EL, Peters MDJ, Tricco AC, Alexander L, McInerney P, et al. Undertaking a scoping review: a practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(4):2102–13. pmid:33543511
- 33. Chambergo-Michilot D, Diaz-Barrera ME, Benites-Zapata VA. Scoping reviews, umbrella reviews and focused mapping review synthesis: methodological aspects and applications. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2021;38(1):136–42. pmid:34190906
- 34. Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):179–87. pmid:26262565
- 35. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4. pmid:25034198
- 36. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85. pmid:26052958
- 37. Samnani SS, Vaska M, Ahmed S, Turin TC. Review typology: the basic types of reviews for synthesizing evidence for the purpose of knowledge translation. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2017;27(10):635–41. pmid:29056126
- 38. Cacchione PZ. The evolving methodology of scoping reviews. Clinical Nursing Research. 2016;25: 115–9.
- 39. Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2017;39(1):93–112.
- 40. Whittemore R, Chao A, Jang M, Minges KE, Park C. Methods for knowledge synthesis: an overview. Heart Lung. 2014;43(5):453–61. pmid:25012634
- 41. Cordeiro AM, Oliveira GM de, Rentería JM, Guimarães CA. Revisão sistemática: uma revisão narrativa. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2007;34(6):428–31.
- 42. Moreira W. Revisão de literatura e desenvolvimento científico: conceitos e estratégias para confecção. Janus. 2004;1:21–30.
- 43. Gomes Nazareth CC. Revisão de literatura e revisão sistemática: uma análise objetiva. IJOSD. 2020.
- 44. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013;11:20. pmid:23360661
- 45. Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Sports Chiropr Rehabil. 2001;15:5–17.
- 46. Sobrido Prieto M, Rumbo-Prieto JM. The systematic review: Plurality of approaches and methodologies. Enferm Clin (Engl Ed). 2018;28(6):387–93. pmid:30377041
- 47. Soares L, Campos Verdes Rodrigues ID, Martins LN, Ribeiro da Silveira FD, Fortes Figueiredo ML. Literature review: particularities of each type of study/Revisão de literatura: particularidades de cada tipo de estudo. Rev Enferm UFPI. 2014;2(5):14.
- 48. Gates M, Gates A, Guitard S, Pollock M, Hartling L. Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):254. pmid:33148319
- 49. Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):231. pmid:29162130
- 50. Hasanpoor E, Hallajzadeh J, Siraneh Y, Hasanzadeh E, Haghgoshayie E. Using the methodology of systematic review of reviews for evidence-based medicine. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2019;29(6):775–8. pmid:31741649
- 51. Gentles SJ, Charles C, Nicholas DB, Ploeg J, McKibbon KA. Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):172. pmid:27729071
- 52. Botelho LLR, Cunha CC de A, Macedo M. O método da revisão integrativa nos estudos organizacionais. GeS. 2011;5(11):121.
- 53. Mendes KDS, Silveira RC de CP, Galvão CM. Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto contexto - enferm. 2008;17(4):758–64.
- 54. Soares CB, Hoga LAK, Peduzzi M, Sangaleti C, Yonekura T, Silva DRAD. Integrative review: concepts and methods used in nursing. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2014;48(2):335–45. pmid:24918895
- 55. Russell CL. An overview of the integrative research review. Prog Transplant. 2005;15(1):8–13. pmid:15839365
- 56. Hopia H, Latvala E, Liimatainen L. Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016;30(4):662–9. pmid:27074869
- 57. Souza Mt, Silva Md, Carvalho R. Integrative review: what is it? How to do it? TT - Revisão integrativa: o que é e como fazer. Einstein (Säo Paulo). 2010;8.
- 58. Cardoso V, Trevisan I, Cicolella D de A, Waterkemper R. Systematic review of mixed methods: method of research for the incorporation of evidence in nursing. Texto & Contexto Enferm. 2019;28:e20170279–e20170279.
- 59. Lizarondo L, Stern C, Judith C, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, et al. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI. 2020.
- 60. Galvão MCB, Ricarte ILM. Revisão sistemática da literatura: conceituação, produção e publicação. Logeion. 2019;6(1):57–73.
- 61. Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):121–31. pmid:26196082
- 62. Ravindran V, Shankar S. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis demystified. Indian Journal of Rheumatology. 2015;10(2):89–94.
- 63. Bello AK, Wiebe N, Garg AX, Tonelli M. Basics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the nephrologist. Nephron Clin Pract. 2011;119(1):c50–60; discussion c61. pmid:21677439
- 64. Gomes IS, Caminha I de O. Guia para estudos de revisão sistemática: uma opção metodológica para as ciências do movimento humano. Movimento. 2014;20:395–411.
- 65. Farhat N, Tsaioun K, Saunders-Hastings P, Morgan RL, Ramoju S, Hartung T. Systematic review in evidence-based risk assessment. ALTEX. 2021.
- 66. Knoll T, Omar MI, Maclennan S, Hernández V, Canfield S, Yuan Y, et al. Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology. Eur Urol. 2018;73(2):290–300. pmid:28917594
- 67. Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5. pmid:29316881
- 68. Noordzij M, Hooft L, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, Jager KJ. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: when they are useful and when to be careful. Kidney Int. 2009;76(11):1130–6. pmid:19727062
- 69. Villasís-Keever MÁ, Rendón-Macías ME, García H, Miranda-Novales MG, Escamilla-Núñez A. Systematic review and meta-analysis as a support tools for research and clinical practice. Rev Alerg Mex. 2020;67(1):62–72. pmid:32447868
- 70. Brizola J, Fantin N. Revisão da literatura e revisão sistemática da literatura. Rev Estud Pesq Educ. 2017;3.
- 71. Sampaio R, Mancini M. Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2007;11(1):83–9.
- 72. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):167–71. pmid:7853043
- 73. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2024. Available from: https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
- 74. Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47:46. pmid:31388330
- 75. Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–9. pmid:17279036
- 76. Jones P, Ewan H, Lane T, Adshead J, Vasdev N, Rai BP. How to write a systematic review: Tips and tricks for surgeons in training. Journal of Clinical Urology. 2016;10(2):148–53.
- 77. MolinaArias M. Aspectos metodológicos del metaanálisis (2). Pediatr Aten Prim. 2018;20:401–5.
- 78. Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203. pmid:31684874
- 79. Mohamed Shaffril HA, Samsuddin SF, Abu Samah A. The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners. Qual Quant. 2020;55(4):1319–46.
- 80. Johnson BT, Hennessy EA. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses. Soc Sci Med. 2019;233:237–51. pmid:31233957
- 81. Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis JBI; 2020.
- 82.
Rutter D, Francis J, Coren E, Fisher M. Scie systematic research reviews: guidelines. Social Care Institute for Excellence. 2006. p. 122. Available from: https://lx.iriss.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/rr01.pdf
- 83.
Brasil. Diretrizes metodológicas: elaboração de revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos observacionais comparativos sobre fatores de risco e prognósticos. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia; 2014 Apr.
- 84.
NICE. The guidelines manual. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence - NICE; 2012 Nov. p. 218. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/resources/the-guidelines-manual-pdf-2007970804933
- 85. Wanden-Berghe C, Sanz-Valero J. Systematic reviews in nutrition: standardized methodology. Br J Nutr. 2012;107(Suppl 2):S3–7. pmid:22591902
- 86. Gomersall J, Jadotte Y, Xue Y, Lockwood S, Riddle DP. Chapter 8: Systematic reviews of economic evidence. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis JBI; 2020.
- 87. McArthur A, Klugárová J, Yan H, Florescu S. Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):188–95. pmid:26207851
- 88. McArthur A, Klugarova J, Yan H, Florescu S. Chapter 4: systematic reviews of text and opinion. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis JBI; 2020.
- 89. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34. pmid:16053581
- 90. Yonekura T, Quintans J, Soares C, Negri Filho A. Realist review as a methodology for using evidence in health policies: an integrative review. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2019;53:e03515.
- 91. Iannizzi C, Akl EA, Kahale LA, Dorando E, Mosunmola Aminat A, Barker JM, et al. Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol. F1000Res. 2021;10:802. pmid:35186269
- 92. Felt E, Carrasco JM, Vives-Cases C. Methodology for the development of policy brief in public health. Gac Sanit. 2018;32(4):390–2. pmid:29331213