Premium
Systematic reviews versus narrative reviews in clinical anatomy: Methodological approaches in the era of evidence‐based anatomy
Author(s) -
Henry Brandon Michael,
Skinningsrud Bendik,
Vikse Jens,
Pękala Przemysław A.,
Walocha Jerzy A.,
Loukas Marious,
Tubbs R. Shane,
Tomaszewski Krzysztof A.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical anatomy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.667
H-Index - 71
eISSN - 1098-2353
pISSN - 0897-3806
DOI - 10.1002/ca.23042
Subject(s) - narrative review , narrative , context (archaeology) , systematic review , perspective (graphical) , medicine , theme (computing) , point (geometry) , engineering ethics , medline , computer science , linguistics , history , philosophy , geometry , mathematics , artificial intelligence , intensive care medicine , engineering , operating system , archaeology , political science , law
Two main types of review articles with distinct characteristics and goals are commonly found in the scientific literature: systematic reviews and narrative (also called expert or traditional) reviews. Narrative reviews are publications that describe and discuss the state of science on a specific topic or theme from a theoretical and contextual point of view with little explicit structure for gathering and presenting evidence. Systematic reviews are overviews of the literature undertaken by identifying, critically appraising and synthesizing the results of primary research studies using an explicit methodological approach. With the recent rise of evidence‐based anatomy, important questions arise with respect to the utility of narrative reviews in clinical anatomy. The goal of this perspective article is to address the key differences between narrative and systematic reviews in the context of clinical anatomy, to provide guidance on which type of review is most appropriate for a specific issue, and to summarize how the two types of reviews can work in unison to enhance the quality of anatomical research and its delivery to clinicians and anatomists alike. Clin. Anat. 31:364–367, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.