No, systematic reviews are secondary sources that synthesize primary studies on a defined question.

No, systematic reviews are secondary research that synthesize existing studies rather than collecting new data.

Yes, systematic reviews can be original research when prespecified methods and meta-analysis synthesize studies to produce new evidence.

No, not all meta-analyses are systematic reviews; the topic involves a statistical method that can exist with or without a full systematic review.

No, meta-analyses and systematic reviews differ: a review follows a preset method; a meta-analysis statistically combines its included studies.

No, systematic reviews and literature reviews differ: systematic reviews use preset methods; literature reviews provide narrative overviews.

Yes, meta-analyses are peer-reviewed when published in peer-reviewed journals or series; preprints are not peer-reviewed.

Yes, review papers are peer-reviewed in reputable journals, though policies can vary by venue and article type.

Yes, most review articles in scholarly journals are peer-reviewed, with rare exceptions such as editorials or preprints.

Yes, systematic reviews are peer-reviewed when published in peer-reviewed journals; protocols, theses, and preprints may not be.