Which type of review provides an exhaustive summary of existing research on a specific question or topic?

A systematic review is designed to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive summary of existing research on a specific question or topic. This type of review follows a structured and transparent methodology, aiming to minimize bias by using predefined criteria for including and excluding studies. It involves a thorough search of multiple databases, ensures that all relevant studies are considered, and often includes a quantitative meta-analysis, where possible, to synthesize the results statistically.

Systematic reviews are highly valued in evidence-based practice because they not only summarize existing research but also evaluate the quality of the studies included. This allows practitioners to draw more reliable conclusions based on the overall body of evidence rather than individual studies. The rigor of the systematic approach helps to ensure that the findings can inform decision-making in clinical or public health contexts.

In contrast, other types of reviews, like literature reviews, narrative reviews, and scoping reviews, do not strictly adhere to the same systematic methodology. Literature reviews may provide a valuable overview but can lack the thoroughness and critical evaluation typical of systematic reviews. Narrative reviews often summarize findings in a more descriptive manner without focusing on systematic search protocols. Scoping reviews are useful for mapping the literature in a field but are less about exhaustive data collection and more about identifying key concepts and gaps in research.