According to Maria J. Grant and Andrew Booth, "the expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types."
Some review types have explicit methods (i.e. systematic reviews) while others have more ambiguous methodologies.
If you plan to conduct a review of the literature, it is important to determine which type of review is most appropriate for your purposes.
A scoping review "provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. It aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence." (Grant & Booth, 2009) These reviews, also called mapping reviews or scoping studies, can be used to identify key concepts within a field and clarify definitions in terminology. Scoping reviews can be useful for examining emerging evidence in instances when it is unclear what specific question should be addressed. This makes scoping reviews a good approach for laying the foundation for future systematic reviews. (Peters et al., 2017)
Authors of scoping reviews may find it helpful to use the PCC (population, concept, context) framework when formulating a research question. The JBI template may be used to plan your review and develop a protocol.
Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy (Whittemore and Knafl 2005). Integrative reviews allow for the inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. They may combine data from theoretical literature in addition to empirical studies. Integrative reviews have been labeled as the "broadest type of research review methods" because they allow for the inclusion of a variety of types of data; but they also may serve to define concepts, review theories, review evidence and analyze methodological issues.
Stages of an Integrative Review (Whittemore and Knafl)
Rapid reviews aim to be rigorous in their methodology, similar to a systematic review, but set limits on the process in order to shorten the timeframe of review completion (Grant & Booth 2009). Several stages of the review process may be limited, including the scope of the question, the comprehensiveness of the search strategy, or the quality appraisal. The review authors explore the effects these limited methods may have had on the results.