The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Writing narrative style literature reviews
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Following preferred reporting for systematic reviews guidelines (PRISMA) (Page et al., 2020), we conducted a systematic search and narrative synthesis (Ferrari, 2015).”
From The Role and Impact of the Prison Chaplain: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Ferrari, 2015
In the citing paper
“Due to methodological heterogeneity, we combined all data through a narrative synthesis, a dynamic process consisting data extraction and visualisation, description and interpretation (Ferrari, 2015).”
From The Role and Impact of the Prison Chaplain: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis (2024) · cites this paper as Ferrari, 2015
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 [20]
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2000-2001.
Rudner, L. M., & Schafer, W. D. (2001) · Practical assessment, research & evaluation · Cited by 3,905
Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006) · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0899-3467(07)60142-6 · Cited by 2,224 · cited 9×
“An example of good title is: Injuries Associated with Soccer: A review of Epidemiology and Etiology.2 Literature search for the present article As an example, a literature search was performed for the present study on the lines of searches for an NR, but including features of SR methodology (Figure 1).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialUndertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach
Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008) · British Journal of Nursing · doi:10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059 · Cited by 1,430
RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-21 · Cited by 1,374
Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?
Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 · Cited by 1,188
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A. C., Sampson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 · Cited by 891
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Randolph JJ, 2009, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14, 1
- Liumbruno GM, 2013, Blood Trans, 11, 217
- O'Connor TR, 2009, BAMED, 37, 344
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001
Artificial intelligence and immersive technologies for LGBTQ+ youth: a narrative review
Shekarchi, R., Eleuteri, S., Saladino, V., Calaresi, D., Giordano, F., & Prunas, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.2002054
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferrari, R.
- Corresponding author
- Ferrari, Rossella
- Venue
- Medical Writing
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › 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
