Cited by 1,907Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Writing and PublishingHealth Sciences Research and Education

Writing narrative style literature reviews

Ferrari, Rossella·2015·Medical Writing

Abstract

Reviews provide a synthesis of published literature on a topic and describe its current state-of-art. Reviews in clinical research are thus useful when designing studies or developing practice guidelines. The two standard types of reviews are (a) systematic and (b) non-systematic or narrative review. Unlike systematic reviews that benefit from guidelines such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, there are no acknowledged guidelines for narrative reviews. I have attempted to define the best practice recommendations for the preparation of a narrative review in clinical research. The quality of a narrative review may be improved by borrowing from the systematic review methodologies that are aimed at reducing bias in the selection of articles for review and employing an effective bibliographic research strategy. The dynamics of narrative review writing, the organizational pattern of the text, the analysis, and the synthesis processes are also discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1179/2047480615z.000000000329

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferrari, R.
Corresponding author
Ferrari, Rossella
Venue
Medical Writing
Published
2015-12
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
230-235
ISSN
  • 2047-4806 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-4814
OpenAlex
W2239104709
Cited by
1,907
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 462 · 2025: 327 · 2024: 273 · 2023: 212 · 2022: 214 · 2021: 175 · 2020: 122 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
16.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Medical Writing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
literature review writing, clinical research, best practice recommendations, systematic reviews, text structure

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