A literature review and systematic paper can be confusing since they both give a summary of existing research on a given subject.
Despite serving a similar objective, the two vary significantly. In our literature review vs systematic paper, we look at the differences between the two.
Key Takeaways
- Systematic and literature reviews enable researchers to find gaps and advance research and implementation in the field
- A literature review gives you a summary of already existing research, and a systematic review answers a specific question without instances of biasness.
- From a value point of view, systematic review connects researchers to evidence-based practices while a literature review focuses strictly on giving a summary of already existing studies.
- While a literature review can have only one participant, a systematic review requires more than one author.
Literature Review Writing Help
Are you currently stuck on writing your literature review chapter for your dissertation or research paper project and would like to get professional help?
Maybe you have daily assignments to complete and can’t schedule enough time for the literature?
Hire our literature review writing service and benefit from the convenience and flexibility of professional help.
We’ll do complete custom writing for you, edit and proofread your work, and deliver it to your email or Help for Assessment’s account before the due date.
What is Literature Review?
We can define a literature review as a qualitative summary of evidence on an issue. One uses subjective and informal approaches to collect, analyze, and interpret findings
A literature review is critical in form. Ideally, it gives an unbiased analysis of already existing research. While it’s a standalone publication, it doesn’t feature new data or experiment in any form.
It’s easy to write and usually takes a short period. You can learn how to write a literature review by reading this post.
What is a Systematic Paper?
A systematic paper is applied in evidence-based medicine.
Unlike a literature review, a systematic paper goes deeper into analysis and provides a comprehensive review of already published work on a specific topic.
It focuses on answering a specific question and demand systematic and effective methodology to answer the question asked.
When writing a systematic paper, you have to give a high-level analysis of the primary research on the given research question. Given the depth of information required, you have to identify, select, synthesize, and appraise all research evidence linked to the question asked
Unlike literature review, a systematic paper can include gray literature such as ongoing clinical trials, unpublished studies, reports, dissertations, government research, and abstracts.
Literature Review Vs Systematic Paper: What are the Differences?
The table below shows the difference between literature review and systematic paper review:
Literature Review | Systematic Paper | |
|---|---|---|
What’s the primary goal? | The goal of a literature review paper is to provide a summary or overview of an existing research | A systematic review answers a specific question and usually doesn’t have elements of biasness |
Value | From a perspective of value, all a literature review does is to give a summary of the literature on the topic | A systematic paper connects professionals to high-quality, evidence-based practices |
Number of participants | A literature review can have one or more writers | A systematic review paper requires two or more authors |
Writing requirements | Writing a literature review is easy. All you need to do is to understand the topic and then search one or more databases for information to present | In addition to understanding the topic, a systematic review demands statistical resources for meta-analysis and searches from relevant databases |
Question | A literature review can be on a general topic or a specific question | Looks into an answerable clinical question, which must be clearly defined |
Outline | A literature review has an introduction, methods, discussions, conclusions, and a reference list | A systematic review paper outline include pre-defined eligibility criteria, strategies, validity of results, interpretation and presentation of results, and a reference list |
Timeframe | Can take weeks to months to write depending on the issue under review | Takes months to years to complete, with the average duration being 18 months |
Literature Review Vs Systematic Paper: The Scope of the Review Question
Literature reviews are usually broad in scope
Literature review even allows an author to place their knowledge within existing research, or give more preferences to information that favors a specific viewpoint
On the other hand, a systematic review begins with a specific clinical research question. You have to find all existing evidence to the research question, and then present your review in a transparent and reproducible way.
Literature Review Vs Systematic Paper: Research
With A Literature review, an author does research only when necessary (or needed).
Searches tend not to be exhaustive and may not be fully comprehensive. The author tends to base their review on what they’re familiar with
In systematic review, research is exhaustive.
Authors find all the best possible sources of information, from published information to unpublished findings, to answer the research question.
Also, the research and review process is professionally documented and presented.
Literature Review Vs Systematic Paper: Reason for the Study
A literature review fails to explain why an author included or excluded studies from the review.
In a systematic review, authors give explicit and informed reasons why they why they included or excluded studies on the issue under investigation.
Literature Review Vs Systematic Paper: Qualitative Assessment
Because a literature does not consider the quality of a study, the study design may be biased.
Systematic review on the other hand evaluates the risks of biasness in individual studies and the quality of the evidence provided in the study.
Also, systematic review paper asses the sources of heterogeneity of the study results
Literature Review Vs Systematic Paper: Research Synthesis
While conclusions in literature review are qualitative, the results isn’t an exact indication of the quality of the study conducted
Systematic review does more than just base conclusions on the quality of the study.
In addition to identifying and acknowledging gaps in the clinical studies, the review also addresses the gaps and recommends the best practices.
Related Readings
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can You Use Systematic Review in a Literature Review?
You cannot use a systematic review in a literature review because the review is work based on original research articles.
Note that any material considered as a secondary source, including but not limited to narrative reviews, meta analyses, and systematic reviews, isn’t fit for a literature review assignment.
2. What Makes a Literature Review Systematic Review?
A literature review becomes a systematic review if the aim is to find relevant research on a selected research question.
Within this context, there must exist explicit methods that identify what you can reliably express based on the studies.
3. Why is a Literature Review Different than a Systematic Review?
Whereas a systematic review uses an analytical approach to collect and evaluate secondary data, a literature review presents a summary of current theories and knowledge on a given topic.