How does a systematic review differ from a traditional literature review?

A systematic review is characterized by its use of predefined criteria for selecting and analyzing studies, which distinguishes it from traditional literature reviews. In a systematic review, researchers follow a rigorous and transparent methodology to locate, evaluate, and synthesize research findings from multiple studies. This process typically includes developing specific research questions, outlining inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies, conducting a comprehensive search of literature, and systematically analyzing the quality and outcomes of the included studies.

This structured approach minimizes bias and enhances the reproducibility of the results, allowing for a more objective assessment of the evidence. In contrast, traditional literature reviews may lack this level of rigor and can incorporate subjective interpretations, making them less reliable for drawing conclusions about a body of research. By relying on predefined criteria, systematic reviews ensure a more comprehensive and unbiased synthesis of existing research, which is essential for informing practice and guiding future research directions.