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

A systematic review is distinct because it follows a standardized protocol designed to minimize bias and ensure the reliability of the findings. This rigorous method involves clearly defining the research question, establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies, conducting a comprehensive and reproducible search strategy, and systematically analyzing the data gathered. The objective is to collate all relevant evidence to answer a specific research question, which enhances the transparency and objectivity of the review process.

In contrast, a regular literature review is typically more narrative, may lack comprehensive search strategies, and is often influenced by the author's subjective selection of articles, which can lead to potential bias. Without a standardized protocol, regular literature reviews may miss important studies or fail to synthesize them effectively. Thus, the systematic approach of a systematic review ensures a higher level of rigor and reliability, making it superior for evidence synthesis.