Narrative Review — Narrative Literature Review
Narrative Literature Review · Also known as: traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis
A narrative review is a broad, author-directed synthesis of published literature on a topic, written to summarize, interpret, and contextualize existing knowledge without following the rigorous, pre-registered search and selection protocols that characterize systematic reviews. It draws on the author's expertise to weave disparate sources into a coherent account that identifies themes, debates, and directions for future research.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
+1 more
When to use it
Narrative reviews are appropriate when the goal is to provide an accessible orientation to a large or complex topic, explore conceptual or theoretical debates, trace the historical development of a field, or identify research gaps without the requirement for exhaustive evidence synthesis. They suit educational or perspective articles, introductory sections of empirical papers, and early-stage exploration of emerging topics where the literature is too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. Do not use a narrative review when the primary goal is to estimate a pooled effect size, answer a narrow clinical or policy question requiring transparent evidence grading, or produce a reference standard for guideline development — those goals require systematic review methods with explicit search protocols and risk-of-bias assessment.
Strengths & limitations
- Accessible and readable format suited to broad audiences, including students and practitioners outside the specialty.
- Allows coverage of heterogeneous bodies of literature that resist quantitative pooling.
- Leverages expert judgment to highlight pivotal studies and interpret complex, contested findings.
- Faster and less resource-intensive to produce than a systematic review or meta-analysis.
- Well suited to exploring conceptual, theoretical, or historical questions about a field.
- Lacks a transparent, reproducible search and selection protocol, making it difficult to assess completeness or replicate.
- Highly susceptible to selection bias: the reviewer may consciously or unconsciously favor studies that confirm prior beliefs.
- Cannot produce unbiased pooled estimates of effect size; any quantitative claims should be interpreted cautiously.
- Quality depends heavily on the reviewer's expertise and objectivity, which cannot be externally verified without full documentation.
- Not accepted by evidence-grading bodies (e.g., GRADE) as a basis for clinical or policy recommendations.
Frequently asked
What is the main difference between a narrative review and a systematic review?
A systematic review follows a pre-registered protocol with exhaustive, reproducible search strategies and explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria applied by at least two independent reviewers; it is designed to minimize bias and enable replication. A narrative review is author-directed, relies on the reviewer's judgment for source selection, and prioritizes interpretive synthesis and readability over exhaustive coverage and reproducibility.
Can a narrative review be published in a peer-reviewed journal?
Yes. Many journals publish narrative reviews as review articles, perspective pieces, or invited expert syntheses. However, reviewers and editors increasingly expect authors to report their search strategy, acknowledge the review's limitations, and be explicit that the work is a narrative rather than a systematic synthesis. Some journals require a PRISMA or similar checklist even for non-systematic reviews.
When is it acceptable to cite a narrative review as evidence?
Narrative reviews are appropriate as background references and for situating a study in its intellectual context. They should not be cited as authoritative evidence for quantitative claims (e.g., 'studies show a 30% effect') unless the claim is independently documented in primary sources, because the review may not represent the full evidence base.
How do I reduce bias in a narrative review?
Key practices include: defining the scope explicitly before searching; reporting databases, date ranges, and key search terms; noting major studies that challenge your conclusions rather than omitting them; considering co-authors with differing expertise or viewpoints; and declaring any conflicts of interest that might influence source selection or interpretation.
Is a narrative review the same as a literature review in a thesis introduction?
Functionally similar, but a standalone narrative review article is longer, more comprehensive, and explicitly positioned as a contribution to knowledge in its own right. A thesis literature review section contextualizes one specific study and is embedded in a larger document; it shares the non-systematic character of a narrative review but has a different scope and publication purpose.
Sources
- Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. DOI: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6 ↗
- Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing, 24(4), 230–235. DOI: 10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Narrative Literature Review. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/scientometrics/narrative-review
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Bibliometric AnalysisScientometrics↔ compare
- Integrative ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Rapid ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Scoping ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Systematic Literature ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Umbrella ReviewEvidence Synthesis↔ compare