Which statement correctly contrasts a narrative review with a systematic review?

Which statement correctly contrasts a narrative review with a systematic review?

• A. Narrative is quantitative and objective.
• B. Narrative reviews are faster to complete than systematic reviews.
• C. Narrative is descriptive and subjective; systematic uses predefined methods to minimize bias.
• D. Systematic reviews rely on expert judgment with no predefined methods.

Answer: (C)

Narrative and systematic reviews differ in how they approach collecting and summarizing evidence, especially regarding methods and bias. A narrative review tends to describe literature in a more freeform, interpretive way, reflecting the author’s perspective and without a clearly predefined search or study-selection process. This description highlights why it can feel descriptive and subjective. In contrast, a systematic review uses a predefined plan to minimize bias. It outlines explicit research questions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, comprehensive search strategies, and methods for screening, data extraction, and assessing the quality of included studies. Because every step is planned in advance and documented, the process is more transparent and reproducible, reducing the influence of individual judgment on which studies are included or how findings are synthesized. That contrast is what makes the statement about narrative being descriptive and subjective while systematic reviews rely on predefined methods to minimize bias the best description. The other options mischaracterize one or both approaches: narrative reviews are not typically quantitative or purely objective; speed is not a defining difference and isn’t guaranteed; and systematic reviews do rely on predefined methods rather than expert judgment with no structure.

Narrative and systematic reviews differ in how they approach collecting and summarizing evidence, especially regarding methods and bias. A narrative review tends to describe literature in a more freeform, interpretive way, reflecting the author’s perspective and without a clearly predefined search or study-selection process. This description highlights why it can feel descriptive and subjective.

In contrast, a systematic review uses a predefined plan to minimize bias. It outlines explicit research questions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, comprehensive search strategies, and methods for screening, data extraction, and assessing the quality of included studies. Because every step is planned in advance and documented, the process is more transparent and reproducible, reducing the influence of individual judgment on which studies are included or how findings are synthesized.

That contrast is what makes the statement about narrative being descriptive and subjective while systematic reviews rely on predefined methods to minimize bias the best description. The other options mischaracterize one or both approaches: narrative reviews are not typically quantitative or purely objective; speed is not a defining difference and isn’t guaranteed; and systematic reviews do rely on predefined methods rather than expert judgment with no structure.