Table 1. Main differences between... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1.

Main differences between traditional and systematic reviews

Process step	Elements of the process step	Traditional reviews	Systematic reviews
(1) Identify a review topic and scope	Define the scope and purpose of the review	Often broad or indefinite in scope with the goal of integrating multiple streams of the literature or developing a specific critique or argument	Well-defined and often narrow scope aimed at providing an unbiased synthesis of existing research on a particular question or relationship
	Develop guiding research question(s)	None or only broad guiding research questions	One or several focused and well-defined research questions
(2) Search and select the relevant literature	Set up a review protocol	Typically no review protocol	A-priori review protocol is defined, and all methodological steps explained, including the exclusion and inclusion criteria for research items
	Search for relevant research items	Search methods not disclosed	A comprehensive search in line with the protocol, transparently reported
	Select research items for inclusion in the review sample	Selection process not disclosed, potentially biased selection	Selection of research items made transparent, as unbiased as possible
(3) Analyze the relevant literature	Extract data from the review sample	Data extraction not disclosed, potentially selective, driven by intuition, and thus, biased	Driven by the review protocol and fully disclosed, in line with the predefined research question(s)
	Analyze and synthesize the data	Method of analysis or synthesis not disclosed, potentially intuitive only, and thus, biased	Analysis and synthesis procedures disclosed, often relying on codings from data extraction
(4) Report the review findings	Provide a synthesis/appraisal of the current literature	Usually, a narrative summary, synthesis, or critique of the literature	Usually narratively reported answers to predefined research question(s)

Process step	Elements of the process step	Traditional reviews	Systematic reviews
(1) Identify a review topic and scope	Define the scope and purpose of the review	Often broad or indefinite in scope with the goal of integrating multiple streams of the literature or developing a specific critique or argument	Well-defined and often narrow scope aimed at providing an unbiased synthesis of existing research on a particular question or relationship
	Develop guiding research question(s)	None or only broad guiding research questions	One or several focused and well-defined research questions
(2) Search and select the relevant literature	Set up a review protocol	Typically no review protocol	A-priori review protocol is defined, and all methodological steps explained, including the exclusion and inclusion criteria for research items
	Search for relevant research items	Search methods not disclosed	A comprehensive search in line with the protocol, transparently reported
	Select research items for inclusion in the review sample	Selection process not disclosed, potentially biased selection	Selection of research items made transparent, as unbiased as possible
(3) Analyze the relevant literature	Extract data from the review sample	Data extraction not disclosed, potentially selective, driven by intuition, and thus, biased	Driven by the review protocol and fully disclosed, in line with the predefined research question(s)
	Analyze and synthesize the data	Method of analysis or synthesis not disclosed, potentially intuitive only, and thus, biased	Analysis and synthesis procedures disclosed, often relying on codings from data extraction
(4) Report the review findings	Provide a synthesis/appraisal of the current literature	Usually, a narrative summary, synthesis, or critique of the literature	Usually narratively reported answers to predefined research question(s)

Source: Based on Booth et al. (2021), Hiebl (2021), Jesson et al. (2011), Knoll et al. (2018), Kraus et al. (2020), Simsek et al. (2021), Snyder (2019)