Which statement best describes the difference between systematic reviews and narrative reviews?

Which statement best describes the difference between systematic reviews and narrative reviews?

• A. Systematic reviews are informal summaries; narratives have no bias.
• B. Systematic reviews follow predefined protocols and explicit inclusion criteria, making them more reproducible.
• C. Systematic reviews always include meta-analysis.
• D. Systematic reviews are descriptive and subjective.

Answer: (B)

The main difference lies in how the evidence is gathered and summarized. Systematic reviews are built around a predefined protocol that specifies the search strategy, study types, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and how data will be extracted and synthesized. This explicit plan makes the review reproducible: another researcher can follow the same steps and, assuming similar data, reach similar conclusions. Narrative reviews, on the other hand, provide a broad, interpretive summary of the literature and often don’t follow a pre-specified method, which can introduce selection bias and reduce reproducibility. That’s why the statement describing systematic reviews as following predefined protocols and explicit inclusion criteria, which makes them more reproducible, is the best choice. The idea that they are informal summaries or that they always include a meta-analysis isn’t accurate, and treating systematic reviews as merely descriptive and subjective mischaracterizes their rigorous methodology.

The main difference lies in how the evidence is gathered and summarized. Systematic reviews are built around a predefined protocol that specifies the search strategy, study types, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and how data will be extracted and synthesized. This explicit plan makes the review reproducible: another researcher can follow the same steps and, assuming similar data, reach similar conclusions. Narrative reviews, on the other hand, provide a broad, interpretive summary of the literature and often don’t follow a pre-specified method, which can introduce selection bias and reduce reproducibility.

That’s why the statement describing systematic reviews as following predefined protocols and explicit inclusion criteria, which makes them more reproducible, is the best choice. The idea that they are informal summaries or that they always include a meta-analysis isn’t accurate, and treating systematic reviews as merely descriptive and subjective mischaracterizes their rigorous methodology.