Key result
Alternative review formats may offer greater clinical value to the scientific community than systematic reviews.
Why the study?
Not all systematic reviews are clinically useful, and other types of reviews may provide greater value to the clinical and scientific community.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Comparison
Systematic reviews versus scoping, topical, or critical reviews
Design
Descriptive review with illustrative examples relevant to vascular surgery
Alternative review formats may sometimes outperform systematic reviews; leaves open optimal selection for specific clinical questions.
Systematic reviews are becoming more popular as a way of doing research; however, not all systematic reviews are clinically useful and sometimes another type of review (scoping, topical, or critical) would be of greater value to the clinical and scientific community. The different types of review and their use are described, illustrated by examples relevant to vascular surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Powell et al. (2021) studied this question. Systematic reviews are not always clinically useful, and alternative formats like scoping, topical, or critical reviews may sometimes provide greater value to the scientific community.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: