One question, many reviews: practical typology and decision guide for psychiatrists and psychologists

SUMMARY Synthesising research evidence is a cornerstone of evidence-based health sciences, playing a critical role in guiding research, practice and policy. Understanding the differences and similarities among the wide variety of review approaches is essential for selecting the most appropriate. This article discusses ten of the most common review types in psychiatric and psychological research: narrative reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, umbrella reviews, network meta-analyses, meta-epidemiological studies, scoping reviews, mapping reviews, rapid reviews and state-of-the-art reviews. For each type, its purpose, function, distinctions and practical examples are described, offering a clearer picture of its role and application. The article emphasises that no single type is inherently superior; rather, the suitability of a given method depends on the research question, the state of the evidence and practical constraints. These explanations are intended not only to support novice researchers who may lack familiarity with review methodologies but also to assist more experienced scholars in avoiding common mistakes when selecting and applying review approaches.