No, systematic reviews and literature reviews differ: systematic reviews use preset methods; literature reviews provide narrative overviews.
Short Answer And Why It Matters
Researchers and students ask, “are systematic reviews and literature reviews the same?” because both map prior work. The terms appear in course briefs, grant calls, and journals, yet they point to two different tasks. One is a formal study of studies with a preplanned protocol. The other is a narrative overview that threads together what the field has said. Mix them up and you risk the wrong method, the wrong time estimates, and the wrong expectations from supervisors or editors.
Core Definitions At A Glance
Here’s a crisp comparison to set a shared baseline before we go deeper. Use it to align with your team on scope and outputs.
| Aspect | Systematic Review | Literature Review |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Answer a focused question with all eligible evidence | Summarize and interpret what’s been published |
| Protocol | Written in advance; registers methods and outcomes | Usually no formal protocol |
| Search | Comprehensive, documented, reproducible | Selective, shaped by scope and judgment |
| Screening | Predefined criteria; dual screening common | Flexible inclusion shaped by argument |
| Appraisal | Formal risk-of-bias and study quality tools | Variable, often narrative quality comments |
| Synthesis | Structured; may include meta-analysis | Thematic or chronological narrative |
| Output | Transparent methods, flow diagram, evidence tables | Concept map and gaps for next steps |
Are Systematic Reviews And Literature Reviews The Same? Scope, Time, And Team
Scope drives everything. A systematic review asks one clear question framed with concepts like population, intervention, comparator, and outcome in health, or a similar structure in other fields. That tight scope allows you to search broadly yet screen with discipline. A literature review scans a wider arc. You might trace models, definitions, and debates, then group them into themes. Each serves a different reader need.
Time is another divider. A high-quality systematic review can take months. You’ll plan a protocol, pilot your criteria, run and de-duplicate searches across several databases, screen in pairs, extract data, judge bias, and, when the data align, run a meta-analysis. A literature review is faster. You still read widely, but you can move with more agility and shape the story as you learn.
Team size shifts, too. Systematic reviews work best with at least two reviewers at each stage to reduce error. Many journals expect this. A solo scholar can write a literature review and still add real value with a tight lens and thoughtful synthesis.
Method, Step By Step
Systematic Review Workflow
1) Frame the question. 2) Draft a protocol. 3) Design a full search strategy with a librarian, including databases and gray sources. 4) Register the protocol if your field supports it. 5) Screen titles and abstracts against fixed criteria, then full texts. 6) Extract data with calibrated forms. 7) Appraise risk of bias. 8) Synthesize findings with structured methods, and run statistical pooling when suitable. 9) Report with a flow diagram and full tables so others can audit and repeat the work.
Literature Review Workflow
1) Set the aim and boundaries. 2) Select sources that speak to the aim. 3) Map themes, theories, and methods. 4) Weave a clear narrative that shows what’s known, what’s contested, and where the gaps lie. 5) Close with what the field needs next, such as better measures or settings.
Standards, Checklists, And Transparency
Systematic reviews follow reporting checklists like PRISMA, which ask authors to show what they planned, how they searched, how many records were screened, and why studies were included or excluded. The Cochrane Handbook gives detailed method advice on protocols, bias tools, and synthesis choices. It explains how to frame eligibility, judge bias, and decide when a meta-analysis makes sense. Use those guides to keep your write-up consistent and clear.
When To Choose Each Type
Pick a systematic review when a narrow, answerable question sits on a body of empirical studies. Policy and clinical decisions often rely on this style, since users want a reliable summary of effects or associations. Pick a literature review when you need context, theory, or an aerial map of topics. It’s well suited to early-stage theses and grant proposals where the goal is to set the scene and spot gaps.
Common Misconceptions To Avoid
“A Systematic Review Always Includes A Meta-Analysis.”
Not true. Many fields lack comparable measures or study types that can be pooled. A well run systematic review can end with a structured narrative or a tabular synthesis and still meet the standard.
“A Literature Review Can’t Be Rigorous.”
It can. Rigor comes from a clear aim, transparent choices, and fair treatment of sources. Even without a protocol, you can share your search strings, inclusion logic, and coding frame.
Taking An Efficient Path From Idea To Output
Start with the audience. If a guideline panel, policy lead, or editor needs a dependable estimate, lean toward a systematic pathway. If a supervisor asks for background and a research gap, a literature review fits the brief. Write a one-page scoping note that states the question, deliverable, word count, timelines, and who does what. That single page prevents scope creep and sets the right level of effort.
Close Variation: Are Systematic Versus Narrative Literature Reviews The Same? Picking The Right Fit
Some programs label the assignment “narrative literature review.” That’s the traditional form seen in thesis chapters and standalone articles. It weighs themes and arguments, not just effect sizes. It’s not the same as the protocol-driven synthesis above. Both sit on the same reading pile, but they part ways in planning, search breadth, screening, and how the results are written.
Outputs And Deliverables You Can Expect
Systematic Review Outputs
You’ll produce a flow diagram, eligibility table, risk-of-bias table, and a structured summary. If the data allow, you’ll include forest plots and effect estimates. The result is a repeatable path from question to answer.
Literature Review Outputs
You’ll deliver a narrative with themed sections, a concept map or figure, and a tight set of gaps that shape the next study. The style is more essay-like and easier to read for newcomers to a topic.
Effort, Skills, And Tools
A systematic review benefits from database skills, de-duplication software, screening tools, and a stats package. You’ll also need time for calibration and consensus meetings. A literature review leans on skimming efficiency, note-taking discipline, and a clean way to store quotes and ideas. Both benefit from a reference manager and a style guide shared across the team.
Documented Steps You Should Never Skip
For a systematic path: write the protocol, pilot your criteria, record every decision, and archive your search strategies. For a literature path: define scope, name your sources, show how you grouped studies, and cite gaps with care. These moves keep your reader’s trust and save you from rework.
Quick Checklist For Your Assignment
Use this page while scoping your project. First, say out loud the exact question: are systematic reviews and literature reviews the same? Then pick the path that fits the deliverable and time you have. If you choose a systematic path, budget time for dual screening and for writing clear tables. If you choose a literature path, budget time for reading outside your first database and for shaping themes that hold together. Share a one-page plan with your supervisor. Set deadlines for search, screening, extraction, and drafting. Book two check-ins for feedback. Add a third day at the end for tidy tables and a final proof.
Templates You Can Adapt
| Task | Systematic Review Template | Literature Review Template |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Write a single, focused question with defined concepts | Write an aim that frames themes or debates |
| Protocol/Plan | Register a protocol and list methods | Create a brief plan with scope and boundaries |
| Search | Full strategies per database; list dates | Named sources and date limits |
| Screening | Dual screening with set criteria | Single screening tied to the aim |
| Appraisal | Risk-of-bias tool per study design | Short notes on quality and relevance |
| Synthesis | Structured, with tables and, if suitable, meta-analysis | Thematic write-up with figures |
| Reporting | Follow a checklist and share the flow | State methods plainly in Methods/Scope |
Realistic Timelines And Resourcing
Small teams often plan 6–12 months for a systematic review with meta-analysis, depending on search size and data extraction needs. Academic programs sometimes set a shorter window and narrow the question to match. A literature review can be done in weeks when the topic is contained. Scale up the time if you’re crossing disciplines or languages.
Quality Signals Editors And Reviewers Look For
Editors scan for transparency, fit-for-purpose methods, and a clean thread from question to conclusion. They also glance at the reference list to see if you missed core studies. Clear tables, a one-sentence answer near the top, and crisp headings help readers who scan first and read later.
Readers value plain summaries. Add one paragraph that states who was studied, what was compared, and what changed. Keep numbers with units and share ranges when you can.
Bottom Line: Different Aims, Different Methods
Say the phrase twice when scoping your project: are systematic reviews and literature reviews the same? No. One is method-bound evidence synthesis; the other is a flexible narrative. Pick based on your question and the decision your reader needs to make. Use a protocol and a checklist when you need reproducibility. Use a narrative when you need context and a map of ideas.