Traditional literature review versus systematic literature review in the context of evidence-based medicine

Abstract

Traditional and systematic literature reviews are the two main types of review we are familiar with. Concerns have been shown about the better option  out of these two approaches in providing a template for decision making and policy formulation in evidence-based medicine. This review examines the  characteristics of the two types of literature review based on the following domains; authorship, study protocol preparation, posing a research question,  use of a literature search strategy, sources of locating studies, study selection criteria, critical appraisal of the studies, synthesis, inferences,  reproducibility, refinement, and updating. We conclude that the systematic literature reviews provide a means of achieving the goal of making decisions  and formulating health policies about patient care based on the best available evidence. Systematic literature review makes it convenient for health  policymakers and clinicians to have the much-needed information to implement and hopefully improve patient outcomes.