EVIDENCE-SYNTHESIS REVIEW DESIGNS
Types of Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Synthesis Designs
Choose a review approach from the question and decision it must support. Compare purpose, unit of evidence, scope, methodological constraints, synthesis goals, and updating models across systematic-review and evidence-synthesis designs.
Evidence reviewed through 8 August 2026 using current methodological guidance and peer-reviewed methods literature.
The review label should be one of the last things you settle, not the first. A defensible evidence synthesis starts by asking what decision the work must support, what kind of question is being asked, what counts as the unit of evidence, how broad the evidence base is, what form of synthesis is needed, what constraints are legitimate, and whether the evidence must be maintained over time. Only then does a label such as systematic review, scoping review, overview of reviews, rapid review, or living systematic review become useful.
The difficulty is that evidence-synthesis terminology has grown faster than any simple classification system can comfortably contain. A 2026 scoping review undertaken to inform the Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative identified 1,010 unique terms used to describe evidence-synthesis approaches, 49 formal classification systems, and 15 recurring dimensions used to distinguish approaches.1 That finding is not evidence that researchers need to memorize a thousand labels. It is evidence that a flat list of “review types” is a poor mental model for the field.
A more useful distinction emerged in a 2025 methodological overview linked to the same taxonomy initiative. Its authors described several types of evidence synthesis, including systematic reviews, qualitative evidence syntheses, mixed-methods reviews, overviews of reviews, and “big picture” reviews such as scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence-gap maps. They treated rapid and living reviews differently: as modes that can be applied across evidence-synthesis types rather than as parallel boxes in one taxonomy.2 This distinction provides a practical foundation for this page.
Why a list of review labels is not enough
Review names are useful shorthand, but they often describe different methodological properties. “Scoping review” says something important about purpose and the breadth of inquiry. “Overview of reviews” says something fundamental about the unit of evidence. “Rapid” describes an accelerated mode of conduct in which selected methods are deliberately adapted to meet a decision deadline. “Living” describes an updating mode in which surveillance and incorporation of new evidence continue after the baseline review. These properties can intersect.
That is why a researcher can legitimately encounter combinations such as a rapid scoping review or a living systematic review without creating a contradiction. The base type, conduct mode, synthesis technique, reporting guideline, and updating model answer different questions about the work. Treating all of them as interchangeable “review types” makes design selection harder rather than easier.
A workable vocabulary for evidence-synthesis design
The safest umbrella term for this page is evidence synthesis. Current methods literature uses it to encompass several established synthesis types rather than treating every rigorous synthesis as one kind of systematic review.2 Within that broad field, systematic reviews remain central, but they are not methodologically uniform. Cochrane maintains specialized guidance for different review questions, while JBI’s manual describes multiple methodologies for systematic and scoping reviews, including effectiveness, qualitative evidence, economic evidence, etiology and risk, mixed-methods reviews, umbrella reviews, and other question-specific approaches.3,4
For teaching purposes, it is therefore useful to treat “systematic review” as a broad methodological family containing question-specific forms. That is an interpretive synthesis of the way major methods organizations structure their guidance; it should not be mistaken for a single universal taxonomy formally imposed by those organizations. The methodological point is more important than the label: a systematic review of intervention effects, a diagnostic-test-accuracy review, and a review of prevalence all use explicit systematic methods, but they do not share one interchangeable question framework, appraisal tool, or synthesis model.
| Conceptual level | What it tells you | Examples | What it does not tell you |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence-synthesis type | The broad architecture and purpose of the synthesis. | Systematic review, qualitative evidence synthesis, mixed-methods review, overview of reviews, scoping/mapping approaches. | It does not automatically determine the exact statistical model, reporting checklist, or update schedule. |
| Question-specific systematic-review methodology | How systematic-review methods change with the research question and evidence. | Effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, prevalence/incidence, etiology/risk, prognosis. | It should not be reduced to the topic area; the question architecture changes methods. |
| Conduct mode | How the review is carried out under a particular operational model. | Rapid mode. | A mode is not necessarily a separate base design. |
| Updating mode | How evidence surveillance and incorporation continue over time. | Living mode. | “Living” does not replace the underlying review methodology. |
| Integration or synthesis technique | How findings are combined or interpreted inside the review. | Pairwise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, thematic synthesis, meta-ethnography, synthesis without meta-analysis. | A technique alone is not a review design. |
| Reporting framework | What authors should report transparently. | PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-ScR, PRIOR, PRISMA-LSR, SWiM. | Reporting guidance does not substitute for conduct methodology. |
Start with the question the synthesis must answer
A review should not be selected because a particular label sounds more publishable, because another team used it, or because one design appears faster. The design has to be defensible against the purpose of the synthesis. Right Review was developed for precisely this problem: its original version asked a short sequence of questions to guide users among 41 knowledge-synthesis alternatives, and a 2024 Delphi update revised the tool to 42 total interface items comprising nine guiding questions, 25 evidence-synthesis definitions and approaches, and eight outputs.5,6 Those numbers describe the tool, not a universally accepted count of “review types.” The deeper lesson is that selection requires questions about the evidence problem rather than a menu of labels.
Purpose
Are you estimating effects, describing prevalence, assessing diagnostic accuracy, mapping what evidence exists, integrating qualitative experience, explaining mechanisms, or synthesizing existing reviews? Purpose is often the first discriminating decision.
Question architecture
A focused effect question, a broad PCC-framed scoping question, a diagnostic-accuracy question, and a theory-driven explanatory question require different eligibility logic and different forms of synthesis.
Unit of evidence
Will the review search for primary studies, existing systematic reviews, qualitative findings, or a deliberately broad set of evidence sources? The answer can change the review architecture completely.
Decision context
An urgent policy decision may justify a rapid mode, but urgency does not erase the need to document what was restricted, why the restriction was chosen, and what consequences it may have.
Synthesis objective
Meta-analysis is only one possible synthesis technique. Some systematic reviews synthesize without meta-analysis; scoping reviews typically chart and map; qualitative syntheses may use thematic, framework, meta-aggregative, or interpretive methods.
Updating requirement
If the question is high priority, the evidence is uncertain, and new studies are likely to change conclusions, a review may be maintained in living mode. This is an updating commitment, not a replacement for the underlying method.
The unit of evidence is a decisive boundary
One of the cleanest methodological distinctions in the field concerns what the review actually searches for and includes. A conventional systematic review typically uses primary studies as the unit of searching and inclusion. A Cochrane Overview of Reviews instead uses systematic reviews as the unit of searching, inclusion, and data analysis.7 That shift changes eligibility criteria, appraisal, data collection, overlap management, and what kinds of analyses are appropriate.
Scoping and mapping approaches create a different challenge. They may include broad categories of evidence because their purpose is to describe, characterize, or map a field rather than answer a single focused effect question. JBI describes scoping reviews as mapping or charting the evidence available on a topic, while CEE has formal standards for systematic maps and 3ie evidence and gap maps use systematic searches to populate structured visual frameworks of interventions, outcomes, studies, and evidence gaps.3,8,9 These approaches overlap conceptually, but their outputs and disciplinary traditions are not identical.
Systematic review is a method, but the question changes the method
Systematic reviews share commitments to explicit objectives, pre-specified eligibility criteria, transparent methods, systematic identification of evidence, appraisal of included evidence where appropriate to the methodology, and structured synthesis. Cochrane describes systematic reviews as collating evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question using explicit, systematic methods.4 What follows after that definition depends heavily on the question.
An intervention-effect review may use PICO and risk-of-bias tools designed for trials or non-randomized intervention studies. A diagnostic-test-accuracy review evaluates an index test against a reference standard and uses specialized appraisal and hierarchical synthesis methods. JBI provides distinct methodologies for prevalence/incidence and etiology/risk questions, and its manual also distinguishes qualitative, mixed-methods, economic, and umbrella methodologies.3 It is therefore misleading to teach “the systematic review” as if intervention-effect methods were the universal template for every evidence question.
Meta-analysis is also not the defining boundary. A systematic review can remain systematic when statistical pooling is inappropriate. SWiM was developed specifically to improve transparent reporting of synthesis without meta-analysis in systematic reviews of interventions.10 Conversely, adding a meta-analysis to a poorly framed or incompletely identified evidence base does not make the underlying review method sound.
Boundary to preserve: H10 explains why question type changes review architecture. It does not teach database searching, screening, extraction, risk-of-bias tools, meta-analysis, certainty assessment, or PRISMA manuscript construction in depth; those methods remain owned by the Academy’s dedicated methodological hubs.
Scoping, mapping and “big picture” approaches
Scoping reviews are usually chosen when the purpose is to map concepts, characterize the extent and nature of evidence, clarify definitions, identify evidence gaps, or examine how research has been conducted. JBI emphasizes Population, Concept and Context (PCC) when constructing scoping-review questions. It also states that critical appraisal is not mandatory, although reviewers may choose to appraise evidence when that decision serves the purpose of the review.3 That is a different methodological rationale from a focused systematic review designed to support an effect or other inferential conclusion.
Systematic maps and evidence and gap maps share the broad goal of organizing a body of evidence, but they have their own methodological traditions. CEE publishes conduct and reporting standards specifically for systematic reviews and systematic maps, while 3ie describes evidence gap maps as systematic, transparent collections of impact evaluations and systematic reviews arranged in a visual framework, commonly across intervention and outcome dimensions.8,9 For H10, these are best treated as related mapping approaches rather than collapsed into scoping review or promoted as interchangeable labels.
When the evidence unit is already a systematic review
An overview of reviews addresses a different evidence architecture. Cochrane defines an Overview as a synthesis in which systematic reviews are the unit of searching, inclusion, and data analysis.7 The literature also uses terms such as umbrella review, review of reviews, and meta-review. PRIOR was developed as a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and explicitly acknowledges inconsistent terminology across the field.11
The practical consequence is more important than choosing a universal preferred label. If a team intends to search directly for primary studies and build a new study-level synthesis, it should not call that work an overview merely because existing systematic reviews were used as a starting point. Cochrane allows rare supplemental primary-study searches when review coverage is deficient, but explicitly warns that this is at variance with the standard Overview format and that no established guidance exists for incorporating those additional studies.7 For this hub, “overview of reviews (umbrella review)” is therefore the safest reader-facing formulation: it communicates common usage without pretending the terminology is perfectly standardized.
Overlap is another design-specific problem. The same primary study can appear in several included reviews, creating the risk of double-counting. Cochrane recommends at minimum mapping overlap in a citation matrix and notes that corrected covered area (CCA) may be calculated.7 Newer methods continue to evolve, including the weighted corrected covered area proposed in 2025 to represent informational rather than purely numerical overlap.12 H10 needs only this boundary; detailed overlap decisions belong in a dedicated overview/umbrella methodology resource rather than in the general design hub.
CURRENT REVIEW-DESIGN RESOURCES
Choose and plan an evidence-synthesis approach
These practical resources and methodology guides help you choose an evidence-synthesis design and plan design-specific decisions. They currently cover review-type selection, scoping-review protocols, and rapid-review methods, while leaving room for additional review designs as the collection expands.
Practical review-design resources
Use these resources to identify a defensible review approach and document the decisions that should be made before searching, screening, appraisal, synthesis, or reporting begins.
Choose your evidence-synthesis review type: decision Tool
Match the evidence question, decision need, unit of evidence, scope, methodological constraints, synthesis objective, and updating requirement to a defensible candidate review approach and relevant alternatives.
Scoping review protocol template and PRISMA-ScR checklist
Plan a scoping review around Population, Concept and Context; evidence identification and selection; data charting; optional critical appraisal; and current JBI methodology, while keeping PRISMA-ScR in its appropriate reporting role.
Rapid review protocol template
Plan and document a rapid review by specifying why acceleration is justified, which methods will be restricted or streamlined, who agreed those adaptations, and how each decision could affect the resulting evidence.
Primary-Study Overlap in Umbrella Reviews and Second-Order Meta-Analysis
Map shared primary studies across reviews, calculate overall and pairwise CCA, inspect review containment, and document how overlap should affect descriptive or quantitative synthesis.
Types of systematic reviews explained: systematic, scoping, rapid, umbrella and living reviews
How to write a scoping review protocol: JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidance
How to plan a rapid review: methods, shortcuts and transparent reporting
How the familiar review labels fit into the wider landscape
The review labels most researchers encounter first are useful, but they should be interpreted at the correct methodological level. A systematic review is an evidence-synthesis type whose methods vary with the research question. A scoping review is a broad “big picture” approach used to map concepts, evidence characteristics, or gaps. An overview of reviews works one level higher by synthesizing systematic reviews. Rapid and living reviews describe modes of conduct that can be attached to other evidence-synthesis types rather than functioning as mutually exclusive base designs.2
| Label | Primary methodological signal | Typical evidence unit | What should drive the choice | Important caution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic review | Explicit, pre-specified, reproducible methods used to answer a defined evidence question. | Usually primary studies; exact study designs depend on the question. | The research question, eligible evidence, intended inference, and required synthesis. | Do not equate “systematic review” with intervention-effect review or with meta-analysis. |
| Scoping review | Broad mapping or characterization of evidence, concepts, definitions, methods, or gaps. | Potentially broad source types, specified by PCC and the review objective. | A mapping or clarification purpose rather than a focused inferential question. | Not a shortcut for avoiding appraisal or meta-analysis; critical appraisal is optional and purpose-dependent in JBI guidance.3 |
| Overview of reviews (umbrella review) | Synthesis at review level. | Systematic reviews. | A broad question that can be answered from an existing body of systematic reviews. | Study overlap, review-level risk of bias, and outdated/incomplete reviews require explicit management.7 |
| Rapid review | Accelerated mode using deliberate, transparent methodological adaptations. | Depends on the underlying review type. | A genuine time-sensitive decision need plus a defensible plan for restrictions. | There is no single universal set of shortcuts; Cochrane’s current guidance contains 24 recommendations that must be tailored to context.13 |
| Living review | Continual evidence surveillance and timely incorporation of new evidence. | Depends on the underlying review type. | High-priority questions where new evidence is likely and resources exist to maintain the review. | Cochrane describes living systematic reviews as an approach to updating rather than a separate review method.14 |
Separate the evidence-synthesis type from the mode of conduct
The distinction between type and mode solves several recurring classification problems. If the research purpose calls for a scoping review but a decision-maker needs the result quickly, the methodological conversation becomes “Can a rapid mode be defensibly applied to this scoping review?” rather than “Should we replace scoping review with rapid review?” Likewise, if a completed systematic review addresses a high-priority question in a rapidly evolving evidence base, the team can move that review into living mode without changing the underlying research question into a different species of review.
This is not merely word choice. The distinction clarifies which decisions must be justified. The base evidence-synthesis type determines the research question, eligibility architecture, evidence unit, appraisal expectations, and synthesis purpose. A rapid mode changes how selected steps are conducted under time constraints. A living mode adds continuing surveillance, pre-specified updating decisions, and an explicit plan for entering and leaving living status. Reporting standards then sit on top of the conduct model and tell readers what must be disclosed.
Common design-selection errors
False. Systematic reviews can synthesize without statistical pooling. A scoping review is chosen because its purpose is mapping or clarification, not because meta-analysis is absent.3,10
Incomplete. Rapid reviews deliberately modify selected methods to accelerate production. The adaptations should be chosen, justified, and reported rather than hidden. The correct question is which restrictions are acceptable for the decision context.13
Too simple. Cochrane living reviews use frequent active surveillance and pre-specify when evidence will be incorporated; living status also has to remain worthwhile and feasible over time.14
Terminology overlaps substantially, but PRIOR itself notes inconsistency in how overviews are named. Use a clear operational definition and state the evidence unit rather than relying on the label alone.11
False. PRISMA and its extensions are reporting guidelines. Conduct methods come from methodological handbooks and design-specific guidance such as Cochrane, JBI, Campbell, or CEE.15
Not by itself. Network meta-analysis is a synthesis technique conducted within an evidence-synthesis architecture. The review question, study eligibility, searching, appraisal, and evidence network still have to be designed systematically.
Reporting guidance comes after the design decision
A reporting checklist cannot rescue a methodologically mismatched design. PRISMA 2020 remains the core reporting statement for systematic reviews.15 PRISMA-ScR provides reporting guidance for scoping reviews, not a protocol-writing or conduct method.16 PRIOR provides dedicated reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.11 PRISMA-LSR is an add-on to PRISMA 2020 for living systematic reviews.17 As of 8 August 2026, EQUATOR still lists PRISMA-RR as under development; authors should not cite a finalized rapid-review PRISMA extension that does not yet exist.18
| Design or mode | Conduct / methodological authority | Reporting guidance | Production caution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic review | Cochrane, JBI, Campbell or other question-specific methods guidance. | PRISMA 2020 plus relevant extension when applicable. | PRISMA is not a conduct handbook. |
| Scoping review | JBI scoping-review methodology and related primary methods guidance. | PRISMA-ScR (2018 remains the current published extension while update work continues). | Do not call PRISMA-ScR a scoping-review protocol guideline. |
| Overview of reviews | Cochrane Overview guidance, JBI umbrella-review methodology, or discipline-appropriate conduct guidance. | PRIOR for overviews of healthcare interventions. | Define “systematic review” eligibility and manage overlap explicitly. |
| Rapid mode | Current rapid-review methodological guidance, including the 2024 Cochrane recommendations where applicable. | No finalized dedicated PRISMA-RR statement as of 8 August 2026. | Document adaptations rather than describing them as generic shortcuts. |
| Living mode | Underlying review method plus living-specific surveillance and update decisions. | PRISMA-LSR add-on to PRISMA 2020. | Pre-specify search/update processes and communicate current review status. |
A living review is a continuing methodological commitment
Cochrane defines a living systematic review as a systematic review that is continually updated, with new evidence incorporated as it becomes available.19 Its dedicated guidance goes further and explicitly describes living systematic reviews as an approach to updating reviews rather than a review type or method.14 The underlying systematic-review methods still apply; living mode adds active monitoring, explicit search frequency, pre-specified incorporation decisions, communication of review status, and a decision about when living mode should end.
Monthly searching is an important Cochrane implementation example, not a universal law for every living evidence synthesis. The frequency must be made explicit and should be capable of finding important new evidence quickly enough for the decision context. A living review also requires sustained editorial and analytic capacity. If the evidence base stabilizes, the question loses priority, or the resources needed for active maintenance disappear, continuing to call a review “living” can become misleading.
A future-proof hub has to leave room for legitimate diversity
The current resource collection cannot and should not represent every evidence-synthesis approach. The 2025 methodological overview already distinguishes systematic reviews, qualitative evidence syntheses, mixed-methods reviews, overviews, and a family of “big picture” reviews; the 2026 taxonomy scoping review shows how extensive and unstable the broader terminology remains.1,2 A durable hub therefore needs boundaries rather than an ever-growing list.
Strong candidates for later H10 resources include question-specific systematic-review methodologies such as diagnostic accuracy, prevalence/incidence, and etiology/risk; qualitative evidence synthesis; mixed-methods reviews; overviews; and mapping approaches where the Academy can solve a distinct methodological problem without consuming another hub’s territory. Realist synthesis is methodologically mature but rests on a theory-driven explanatory logic that may justify treatment as an adjacent specialist area rather than being forced into a conventional systematic-review hierarchy. Individual-participant-data meta-analysis and network meta-analysis, by contrast, are better treated as data/synthesis architectures within systematic reviews, not as automatically independent review types.
New reporting extensions should also not be mistaken for new review designs. The appearance of a PRISMA extension for a population, data structure, analysis, or reporting circumstance tells researchers how to report that work more transparently. It does not, by itself, create a new methodological species. This distinction will become even more important as the PRISMA ecosystem expands.
What happens after the review design is selected?
Choosing the review architecture is a beginning, not a substitute for protocol development. The team still has to formulate the question precisely, define eligibility criteria, decide what evidence will count, pre-specify searching and selection, define extraction and appraisal processes, choose synthesis methods, plan certainty or confidence assessment where appropriate, and determine how deviations will be documented. Those decisions should be written before the results of the review are known whenever possible.
The Academy separates these jobs deliberately. H10 owns the design-selection problem. General protocol planning remains in the systematic review protocol planning and registration hub. Search architecture belongs in the search strategy and study identification hub. Screening, extraction, risk of bias, meta-analysis, certainty assessment, and reporting each retain their own methodological territory. That separation helps a researcher move forward without making H10 a superficial version of the entire evidence-synthesis workflow.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between evidence synthesis and a systematic review?
Evidence synthesis is the broader field. Current methodological literature describes several evidence-synthesis types, including systematic reviews, qualitative evidence syntheses, mixed-methods reviews, overviews of reviews, and broad mapping approaches. A systematic review is one major evidence-synthesis type, with methods that vary according to the question and eligible evidence.2
Does a systematic review have to include a meta-analysis?
No. Meta-analysis is a statistical synthesis technique, not the defining criterion for a systematic review. When statistical pooling is inappropriate, a systematic review may use other structured synthesis methods; SWiM provides reporting guidance for synthesis without meta-analysis in intervention reviews.10
Is a scoping review simply a systematic review without meta-analysis?
No. Scoping reviews are selected for a different purpose: typically mapping concepts, evidence characteristics, methods, or gaps across a broad question. JBI uses PCC to frame scoping-review questions and does not make critical appraisal mandatory, although appraisal may be added when it serves the review objective.3
Are umbrella reviews and overviews of reviews the same thing?
The terms are often used for closely related review-of-reviews methods, but terminology has not been perfectly standardized. Cochrane uses “Overview of Reviews,” while JBI commonly uses “umbrella review.” For clarity, this hub uses “overview of reviews (umbrella review)” and defines the method by its review-level evidence unit rather than assuming the label alone is sufficient.7,11
Is a rapid review a separate review type?
Current evidence-synthesis literature increasingly treats rapid review as a mode that can be applied to different evidence-synthesis types. The defining issue is accelerated conduct through deliberate methodological adaptations. Cochrane’s current rapid-review guidance provides 24 recommendations and emphasizes tailoring methods to the decision context rather than using one universal shortcut package.2,13
Is a living systematic review a different method?
No. Cochrane explicitly describes living systematic reviews as an approach to updating reviews rather than a separate review type or method. The underlying systematic-review methods remain, while living mode adds continual surveillance, timely incorporation of important evidence, and pre-specified update processes.14
Which PRISMA guideline should I use?
Use the reporting guideline that matches the review and reporting context. PRISMA 2020 is the core statement for systematic reviews; PRISMA-ScR is the published extension for scoping-review reporting; PRIOR addresses overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions; PRISMA-LSR adds living-review reporting items. Reporting guidance does not replace the methodological handbook used to conduct the review.11,15,16,17
Can I choose a review type mainly because I have limited time?
Time matters, but it should not determine the base design by itself. First identify the question and evidence architecture. If the decision is genuinely time-sensitive, consider whether a rapid mode can be applied transparently to the appropriate evidence-synthesis type, and document the methodological consequences of every adaptation.13
Choose the architecture that can answer the question
The strongest review design is not the one with the most familiar label. It is the design whose purpose, evidence unit, question structure, appraisal strategy, synthesis plan, time constraints, and updating model fit the decision the evidence must support.
That is why this hub will remain broader than its first resources. Scoping, rapid, overview/umbrella, and living methods are important, but they are only part of a larger evidence-synthesis system. Future resources can be added without changing the hub’s thesis or URL because the organizing principle is methodological fit, not a fixed list of review names.
Get the Resource Infrastructure Free Forever
One sign-up grants lifetime access to every template, workbook, and methodology guide on the MetaSyn Resource Infrastructure, current and future. As new resources release, you receive them by email automatically. No spam, no marketing noise, methodology updates from a working meta-analyst, only when there’s something real to share.
References
- Pollock D, Hasanoff S, Barker TH, et al. Over 1000 terms have been used to describe evidence synthesis: a scoping review. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2026;31(4):221-231. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113391
- Nussbaumer-Streit B, Booth A, Garritty C, Hamel C, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Pollock D. Overview of evidence synthesis types and modes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025;187:111970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111970
- JBI. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide: JBI; 2024. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.
- Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.5. Cochrane; 2024. Cochrane Handbook.
- Amog K, Pham B, Courvoisier M, et al. The web-based “Right Review” tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;147:42-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004
- Clyne B, Sharp MK, O’Neill M, et al. An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based “Right Review” tool. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024;170:111333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111333
- Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.5. Cochrane; 2024. Cochrane Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews.
- Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Summary of CEE standards of conduct and reporting for systematic reviews and systematic maps of evidence. CEE standards.
- International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). Evidence gap maps: methods and evidence hub. 3ie Evidence Gap Maps.
- Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890
- Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ. 2022;378:e070849. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070849
- Ying X, Bougioukas KI, Pieper D, Mayo-Wilson E. Weighted corrected covered area (wCCA): a measure of informational overlap among reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2025;16(4):701-708. https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.19
- Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ. 2024;384:e076335. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076335
- Cochrane. Guidance for the production and publication of Cochrane living systematic reviews: Cochrane Reviews in living mode. Version 1.0. 2019. Cochrane living systematic review guidance.
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
- Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
- Akl EA, Khabsa J, Iannizzi C, et al. Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation. BMJ. 2024;387:e079183. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-079183
- EQUATOR Network. Reporting guidelines under development for systematic reviews. Current status checked 8 August 2026. EQUATOR register.
- Thomas J, Askie LM, Berlin JA, et al. Chapter 22: Prospective approaches to accumulating evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.5. Cochrane; 2024. Cochrane Chapter 22.