The broadness of the definition of review has created confusion in conceptualization and usage between different types of review. Therefore, on the basis of summarizing relevant review methodological literature, this article classifies reviews into 9 types, and provides the definition, classification, scope of application, advantages and disadvantages, production processes, relevant reporting guidelines or the latest information about reporting guidelines. According to the problems in the process of generalization, relevant suggestions are put forward so as to provide clear and definite guidance for researchers to carry out a specific type of review.

1.Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, et al. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements[J]. Health Info Libr J, 2019, 36(3): 202-222. DOI: 10.1111/hir.12276.

2.Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science[J]. Ann Intern Med, 1987, 106(3): 485-488. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485.

3.Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies[J]. Health Info Libr J, 2009, 26(2): 91-108. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

4.Mckibbon KA. Evidence-based practice[J]. Bull Med Libr Assoc, 1998, 86(3): 396-401. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9681176/.

5.Booth A. Will health librarians and related information workers ever work together to create an international network?[J] Health Info Libr J, 2001, 18(1): 60-63. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2532.2001.00309.x.

6.Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2019, 104: 333-339. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.

7.Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews[J]. Annual Review of Public Health, 2014, 35: 29-45. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440.

8.Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research[J]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2007, 1(2): 112-133. DOI: 10.1177/1558689806298224.

9.Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, Meta-analyses, and Meta-syntheses[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2019, 70: 747-770. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803.

10.Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews[J]. BMJ Publishing London, 1995, 311:759. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7007.759

11.Eaves YD. A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. J Adv Nurs, 2001, 35(5): 654-663. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01897.x.

12.Collins JA, Fauser BC. Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Hum Reprod Update, 2005, 11(2): 103-104. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmh058.

13.Best L, Stevens A, Colin-Jones D. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England[J]. Journal of Clinical Effectiveness, 1997, 2(2): 51-56. DOI: 10.1108/eb020865.

14.Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap[J]. PLoS Med, 2014, 11(2): e1001603. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603.

15.Brazinova A, Rehorcikova V, Taylor MS, et al. Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in Europe: a living systematic review[J]. J Neurotrauma, 2021, 38(10): 1411-1440. DOI: 10.1089/neu.2015.4126.

16.Papatheodorou S. Umbrella reviews: what they are and why we need them[J]. European Journal of Epidemiology, 2019, 34(6): 543-546. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-019-00505-6.

17.Adams C, Dooley G, Jefferson T, et al. Overviews-the way foward for the collaboration?[C]. The 8th Cochrane Colloquium. Cape Town, South Africa, 2000.

18.Katz DL, Williams AL, Girard C, et al. The evidence base for complementary and alternative medicine: methods of evidence mapping with application to CAM[J]. Altern Ther Health Med, 2003, 9(4): 22-30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12868249/.

19.Arksey H, O'malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework[J]. Int J Soc Res Methodol: Theory & Practice, 2005, 8(1): 19-32. DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.

20.Ioannidis JPA. Meta-research: why research on research matters[J]. PLoS Biol, 2018, 16(3): e2005468. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468.

21.Ioannidis JP, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, et al. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices[J]. PLoS Biol, 2015, 13(10): e1002264. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264.

22.Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review[J]. British Journal of Management, 2003, 14(3): 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.

23.Campbell F, Tricco AC, Munn Z, et al. Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family[J]. Syst Rev, 2023, 12(1): 45. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5.

24.Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 143. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.

25.Armstrong R, Waters E, Roberts H, et al. Systematic Reviews in Public Health[M]. Oxford: Academic Press, 2008.

26.Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, et al. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2011, 11(1): 15. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-15.

27.Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 74-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041.

28.Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, et al. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? a proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 5. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4.

29.Belbasis L, Bellou V, Ioannidis JPA. Conducting umbrella reviews[J]. BMJ Med, 2022, 1(1): e000071. DOI: 10.1136/bmjmed-2021-000071.

30.Mei F, Chen F, Hu K, et al. Registration and reporting quality of systematic reviews on surgical intervention: a Meta-epidemiological study[J]. J Surg Res, 2022, 277: 200-210. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.026.

31.张维益, 李艳飞, 戴岩瑞, 等. SYRCLE偏倚风险评估工具发布是否提高动物实验方法质量?[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2019, 11(10): 1165-1168, 1173. [Zhang WY, Li YF, Dai YR, et al. Does the publication of SYRCLE's risk of bias tool improve the methodological quality of animal experiments?[J]. Chin J Evid Based Cardiovasc Med, 2019, 11(10): 1165-1168, 1173.] DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4055.2019.10.04.

32.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation[J]. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 169(7): 467-473. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850.

33.Cohen JF, Deeks JJ, Hooft L, et al. Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration[J]. BMJ, 2021, 372: n265. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n265.

34.Levitt HM, Bamberg M, Creswell JW, et al. Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative Meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: the APA publications and communications board task force report[J]. Am Psychol, 2018, 73(1): 26-46. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000151.

35.Ryan N, Vieira D, Gyamfi J, et al. Development of the ASSESS tool: a comprehensive tool to support reporting and critical appraisal of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods implementation research outcomes[J]. Implement Sci Commun, 2022, 3(1): 34. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-021-00236-4.

36.Stevens A, Garritty C, Hersi M, et al. Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies (Protocol). 2018.

37.Kahale L, Piechotta V, Mckenzie J, et al. Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs): protocol [version 2; peer review: 1 approved]. F1000Research, 2022, 11(109). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75449.2.

38.Yang K. PRITEM-Preferred Reporting Items for Evidence Mapping. 2022.

39.Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, et al. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach[J]. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2015, 13(3): 132-140. DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055.

40.刘海霞, 胡德华, 尹怀琼. 伞形评价——一种新型循证医学分析方法[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2020, 41(2): 261-266. [Liu HX, Hu DH, Yin HQ. Umbrella review: a new method related to evidence-based medical analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, 2020, 41(2): 261-266.] DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2020.02.021.

41.Puljak L, Makaric ZL, Buljan I, et al. What is a Meta-epidemiological study? analysis of published literature indicated heterogeneous study designs and definitions[J]. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 2020, 9(7): 497-508. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0201.

42.李绪辉, 黄桥, 王永博, 等. 临床实践指南实施性促进研究之一：实施性现状与促进策略[J]. 医学新知, 2021, 31(6): 410-418. [Li XH, Huang Q, Wang YB, et al. Research on promotion of implementation of clinical practice guidelines (Ⅰ): the status of implementation and promotion strategies[J]. Yixue Xinzhi Zazhi, 2021, 31(6): 410-418.] DOI: 10.12173/j.issn.1004-5511.202111064.

43.Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement[J]. BMJ, 2022, 378: e070849. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070849.

44.Marco S, Kelly DC, David M, et al. Development of a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations using cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies: the preferred reporting items for umbrella reviews of cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC)[J]. medRxiv, 2022. DOI: 10.1101/2022.12.28.22283572.

45.Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade[J]. Journal of Sports Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, 2006, 5(3): 101-117. DOI: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6.

46.Torraco R J. Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future[J]. Human Resource Development Review, 2016, 15(4): 404-428. DOI: 10.1177/1534484316671606.

47.Von Kutzleben M, Baumgart V, Fink A, et al. Mixed methods studies in health services research: requirements, challenges and the question of integration - a discussion paper from the perspective of qualitative researchers[J]. Gesundheitswesen, 2023, 85(8-9):741-749. DOI: 10.1055/a-2022-8326.

48.Bryman A. Paradigm peace and the implications for quality[J]. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2006, 9(2): 111-126. DOI: 10.1080/13645570600595280.

49.Guba EG. The alternative paradigm dialog// The alternative paradigm dialog. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-98838-001.

50.李刚, 王红蕾. 混合方法研究的方法论与实践尝试:共识、争议与反思[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版）, 2016, 34(4): 98-105. [Li G, Wang HL. The methodology and practices of mixed methods research: consensuses, controversies and reflection[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2016, 34(4): 98-105.] DOI: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2016.04.015.51.

51.Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview[J]. Am J Nurs, 2014, 114(3): 53-58. DOI: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c.

52.Booth A. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2017.

53.Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and Meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers' perceptions[J]. BMJ Open, 2012, 2(5):e001220. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220.

54.Owens JK. Systematic reviews: brief overview of methods, limitations, and resources[J]. Nurse Author & Editor, 2021, 31(3-4): 69-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/nae2.28.

55.Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 126: 131-140. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.027.

56.Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, et al. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review[J]. Health Res Policy Syst, 2016, 14(1): 83. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7.

57.Macdonald H, Loder E, Abbasi K. Living systematic reviews at the BMJ[J]. BMJ, 2020, 370: m2925. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2925.

58.Page MJ, Mckenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews[J]. BMJ, 2021, 372:n71. DOI: 10.1016/j.rec.2021.07.010.

59.Tong A, Flemming K, Mcinnes E, et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012, 12: 181. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-181.

60.Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting[J]. JAMA, 2000, 283(15): 2008-2012. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.

61.Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research[J]. Evid Based Med, 2017, 22(4): 139-142. DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713.

62.Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network Meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations[J]. Ann Intern Med, 2015, 162(11): 777-784. DOI: 10.7326/M14-2385.