The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade
Open accessAbstract
Objective To describe and discuss the process used to write a narrative review of the literature for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication of narrative overviews of the literature should be standardized to increase their objectivity.Background In the past decade numerous changes in research methodology pertaining to reviews of the literature have occurred. These changes necessitate authors of review articles to be familiar with current standards in the publication process.Methods Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts.Discussion An overview of the use of three types of reviews of the literature is presented. Step by step instructions for how to conduct and write a narrative overview utilizing a 'best-evidence synthesis' approach are discussed, starting with appropriate preparatory work and ending with how to create proper illustrations. Several resources for creating reviews of the literature are presented and a narrative overview critical appraisal worksheet is included. A bibliography of other useful reading is presented in an appendix.Conclusion Narrative overviews can be a valuable contribution to the literature if prepared properly. New and experienced authors wishing to write a narrative overview should find this article useful in constructing such a paper and carrying out the research process. It is hoped that this article will stimulate scholarly dialog amongst colleagues about this research design and other complex literature review methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This process of organizing the data around these categories of prerequisites was discussed with multiple researchers, to overcome the bias that can develop when only one researcher does the process of analysis”
From Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice (2020) · cites this paper as Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Although widely adopted, narrative reviews entail several issues. Authors might be biased due to their subjectivity (Green et al., 2006; Stanley & Jarrell, 1989). By choosing which studies to include in the review, how to weight them and how to interpret their results, reviewers can accommodate, even unconsciously, the main findings of a particular scientific field to be com‐pliant with their pri”
From Public sector reforms and their impact on the level of corruption: A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as Green et al., 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This study employed a structured narrative review to synthesize the existing research on AI adoption and its role in value creation within SMEs in developing economies (Dixon-Woods et al., 2005; Green et al., 2006).”
From Artificial Intelligence Adoption for Sustainable Development in SMEs: Challenges, Strategic Pathways, and Lessons for Developing Economies (2026) · cites this paper as Green et al., 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, we described the methodology used in a detailed manner (Green et al., 2006), and used a scoring system to determine the quality of each publication (Sackett et al., 2000).”
From Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice (2020) · cites this paper as Green et al., 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Narrative reviews are a valuable contribution to the literature as they provide comprehensive syntheses of targeted substantive issues based on previously published information, thus presenting a broader perspective on an otherwise elusive topic and describing the development of a problem or its management (Goodier, 1999;Green et al., 2006).”
From Intersectional climate justice: A conceptual pathway for bridging adaptation planning, transformative action, and social equity (2022) · cites this paper as Green et al., 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Narrative reviews might have limitations when compared with other research designs, attributed to a general lack of systematic, reproducible approaches, which could be vulnerable to bias (Green et al., 2006).”
From Intersectional climate justice: A conceptual pathway for bridging adaptation planning, transformative action, and social equity (2022) · cites this paper as Green et al., 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The literature search for Al toxicosis as a narrative review (Green et al., 2006) with a broad thematic approach was unproductive and this observation justified the need for the current review.”
From Aluminium toxicosis: a review of toxic actions and effects (2019) · cites this paper as Green et al., 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As a narrative synthesis, this review does not provide pooled effect size estimation and remains subject to potential selection bias despite structured search procedures (21).”
From Mindfulness and clinical hypnotherapy in sexual desire disorders: mechanisms, psychophysiological pathways, and integrative therapeutic sequencing (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The review follows established guidance for narrative syntheses while incorporating structured evidence summarization to enhance transparency (21).”
From Mindfulness and clinical hypnotherapy in sexual desire disorders: mechanisms, psychophysiological pathways, and integrative therapeutic sequencing (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“We conducted a narrative review of literature following international guidelines for writing narrative reviews [20, 21].”
From Cognitive decline following acute viral infections: literature review and projections for post-COVID-19 (2022) · cites this paper as [21]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice,
(2002) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(02)00362-4 · Cited by 9,494
Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM
Sackett, D. L. (2000) · Cited by 5,950
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Howel, D., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1995) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533295 · Cited by 3,657
Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Phillips, A. N. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533 · Cited by 2,415
Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews
Dickersin, K., Scherer, R. W., & Lefebvre, C. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286 · Cited by 2,255
Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews
Mulrow, C. D. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597 · Cited by 1,677
Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM
Wilson, M. C. (2001) · ACP Journal Club · doi:10.7326/acpjc-2001-134-1-a15 · Cited by 1,672
Summing up: The Science of Reviewing Research
Wilkinson, I., Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1987) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164691 · Cited by 1,486
Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
Thompson, S. G. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351 · Cited by 1,017
Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis
Slavin, R. E. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-a · Cited by 951
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Lawrence, 1998, Research Agenda Conference 3: editor's presentation: streamlining manuscript submission to scientific journals, J Neuromusculosket Syst, 6, 161
- Green, 2000, Writing patient case reports for peer reviewed journals: secrets of the trade, J Sports Chiropr Rehabil, 14, 51
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,002 of 1,002
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006) · Lancaster University · doi:10.13140/2.1.1018.4643 · Cited by 2,070
Brunzell, T., Stokes, H., & Waters, L. (2016) · Contemporary School Psychology · doi:10.1007/s40688-015-0070-0
“A qualitative systematic literature review (Green et al. (2006)) was undertaken to determine the extant areas of focus within trauma-informed education.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A.
- Affiliations
- National University of Health Sciences (US)
- Texas Chiropractic College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Green, Bart N.
- Venue
- Journal of Chiropractic Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 101-117
- ISSN
- 1556-3707 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2647067
- OpenAlex
- W2004462823
- Cited by
- 2,224
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 398 · 2025: 252 · 2024: 253 · 2023: 264 · 2022: 220 · 2021: 204 · 2020: 140 · 2019: 105 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 3.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Chiropractic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- review article writing, best evidence synthesis, critical appraisal, peer review, research standards, bibliographic databases
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
