Comparer des méthodes

	Revue systématique	Revue narrative de la littérature
Domaine	Rédaction académique	Rédaction académique
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	1992	1900
Auteur d'origine	Cochrane Collaboration (1992)	Research community (traditional academic writing format)
Type	Document Type	Document Type
Source fondatrice	Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.	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.
Alias	systematic literature review, evidence synthesis, scoping review, mapping review	narrative review, literature survey, interpretive review, state-of-the-art review
Apparentées	3	3
Résumé	A systematic review is a structured, transparent synthesis of all available evidence addressing a specific research question. Unlike narrative reviews, systematic reviews employ comprehensive database searches, predefined selection criteria, quality assessment, and rigorous reporting (PRISMA guideline). The Cochrane Collaboration (founded 1992) established this methodology as the gold standard for evidence synthesis in healthcare and social sciences.	A narrative literature review is an interpretive synthesis of published research organized around themes, concepts, or historical progression rather than systematic search. Unlike systematic reviews, narrative reviews employ subjective study selection, do not require protocol registration, and prioritize depth of interpretation over exhaustive comprehensiveness. Narrative reviews are valuable for conceptual synthesis, exploring emerging fields with sparse literature, and providing historical context; they have been the traditional form of scholarly literature synthesis since the inception of academic journals.