No, literature reviews synthesize published studies; they don’t gather new data, so they aren’t empirical research.

Yes, a literature review is research—specifically secondary research that synthesizes studies; it’s not original empirical data collection.

Review articles can be reliable when methods are transparent, conflicts are disclosed, and claims match the evidence.

No, review articles are secondary sources; they synthesize existing studies, except when the review itself is the object of study.

Review articles are secondary sources; they synthesize and evaluate primary studies rather than report new, first-hand data.

No, a meta-analysis is secondary research that statistically combines results from primary studies.

No, review articles are secondary literature; primary literature reports original studies with methods, data, and new results.

Yes, systematic reviews are strong evidence when well-conducted, but strength depends on methods, data quality, and question fit.

Yes, systematic reviews are reliable when methods are transparent, bias is assessed, and evidence certainty is graded.

Yes, systematic reviews are secondary research because they synthesize existing studies rather than collect new data.