Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?
By Trisha Greenhalgh, S. Thorne, K. Malterud. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2018
1,072 citations recorded by the source corpus.
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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Subfields: General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/affcadbd6301b80112330b54f4389ef781a84b08
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Health Professions
In Sociology and Political Science
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- Systematicity in Organizational Research Literature Reviews: A Framework and Assessment (2021, background): “Challenging the view that the SRM is universally superior to literature reviews, Greenhalgh et al. (2018) argued that “the under-acknowledged limitations of systematic reviews, along with missed opportunities for undertaking and using literature reviews to extend understanding within a field, risks…”
- A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies (2020, methodology): “As such, adopting a CLR approach is favoured in realising the goal of the paper as it allows for the inclusion of a wide range of perspectives and theoretical underpinnings from different sources (Greenhalgh et al., 2018; Snyder, 2019).”