Reviews provide a synthesis of published literature on a topic and describe its current state-of-art. Reviews in clinical research are thus useful when designing studies or developing practice guidelines. The two standard types of reviews are (a) systematic and (b) non-systematic or narrative review. Unlike systematic reviews that benefit from guidelines such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, there are no acknowledged guidelines for narrative reviews. I have attempted to define the best practice recommendations for the preparation of a narrative review in clinical research. The quality of a narrative review may be improved by borrowing from the systematic review methodologies that are aimed at reducing bias in the selection of articles for review and employing an effective bibliographic research strategy. The dynamics of narrative review writing, the organizational pattern of the text, the analysis, and the synthesis processes are also discussed.
Editor-in-Chief
Co-Editors
Managing Editor
Victoria White
Deputy Managing Editor
Alicia Brooks Waltman
Associate Editors
Section Editors
AI/Automation
Biotechnology
Digital Communication
EMWA News
Freelancing
Gained in Translation
Getting Your Foot in the Door
Good Writing Practice
Pablo Izquierdo / Alison McIntosh
In the Bookstores
Publications
Medical Communications/Writing for Patients
Medical Devices
My First Medical Writing
News from the EMA
Pharmacovigilance
Regulatory Matters
Regulatory Public Disclosure
Louisa Ludwig-Begall / Sarah Kabani
The Crofter: Sustainable Communications
Veterinary Writing
Editors Emeritus
Layout Designer
Chris Monk