Comparative Analysis of Systematic, Scoping, Umbrella, and Narrative Reviews in Clinical Research: Critical Considerations and Future Directions

IF 2.2 4区医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2025-01-03 DOI:10.1155/ijcp/9929300

Mohamad Motevalli

{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Systematic, Scoping, Umbrella, and Narrative Reviews in Clinical Research: Critical Considerations and Future Directions","authors":"Mohamad Motevalli","doi":"10.1155/ijcp/9929300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>Review studies play a key role in the development of clinical practice by synthesizing data and drawing conclusions from multiple scientific sources. In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of review studies conducted and published by researchers. In clinical research, different types of review studies (systematic, scoping, umbrella, and narrative reviews) are conducted with different objectives and methodologies. Despite the abundance of guidelines for conducting review studies, researchers often face challenges in selecting the most appropriate review method, mainly due to their overlapping characteristics, including the complexity of matching review types to specific research questions. The aim of this article is to compare the main features of systematic, scoping, umbrella, and narrative reviews in clinical research and to address key considerations for selecting the most appropriate review approach. It also discusses future opportunities for updating their strategies based on emerging trends in clinical research. Understanding the differences between review approaches will help researchers, practitioners, journalists, and policymakers to effectively navigate the complex and evolving field of scientific research, leading to informed decisions that ultimately enhance the overall quality of healthcare practices.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/ijcp/9929300","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ijcp/9929300","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Review studies play a key role in the development of clinical practice by synthesizing data and drawing conclusions from multiple scientific sources. In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of review studies conducted and published by researchers. In clinical research, different types of review studies (systematic, scoping, umbrella, and narrative reviews) are conducted with different objectives and methodologies. Despite the abundance of guidelines for conducting review studies, researchers often face challenges in selecting the most appropriate review method, mainly due to their overlapping characteristics, including the complexity of matching review types to specific research questions. The aim of this article is to compare the main features of systematic, scoping, umbrella, and narrative reviews in clinical research and to address key considerations for selecting the most appropriate review approach. It also discusses future opportunities for updating their strategies based on emerging trends in clinical research. Understanding the differences between review approaches will help researchers, practitioners, journalists, and policymakers to effectively navigate the complex and evolving field of scientific research, leading to informed decisions that ultimately enhance the overall quality of healthcare practices.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Clinical Practice 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

274

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.