Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?
- Systematic reviews are generally placed above narrative reviews in an assumed hierarchy of secondary research evidence. We argue that systematic reviews and narrative reviews serve different purposes and should be viewed as complementary. Conventional systematic reviews address narrowly focused questions; their key contribution is summarising data. Narrative reviews provide interpretation and critique; their key contribution is deepening understanding.
- Publication status:
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
- Publisher's version
- John Wiley & Sons Ltd Publisher's website
- European Journal of Clinical Investigation Journal website
- Article: e12931
- Publication date:
- Acceptance date:
- Pubs id:
- Local pid:
- Copyright holder:
- Greenhalgh et al.
- Copyright date:
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Clinical Investigation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Views and Downloads
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record