How does a traditional literature review typically differ from a systematic review?

A traditional literature review typically differs from a systematic review in that it is less rigorous and may lack comprehensive criteria. Unlike systematic reviews, which follow a strict and predefined methodology to select, evaluate, and synthesize research studies, traditional literature reviews tend to be more narrative and subjective in nature. They provide an overview of the existing literature but do not always adhere to a specific set of guidelines or systematic processes for gathering and analyzing information. This can lead to biases in how studies are included and discussed, making the findings less reliable or exhaustive compared to systematic reviews.

In contrast, systematic reviews are characterized by their structured approach, which includes clearly defined research questions, comprehensive searches of literature databases, and explicit criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies. This methodology ensures a more thorough and unbiased synthesis of evidence. The other options, such as focusing exclusively on quantitative studies or requiring replication of results, do not capture the essential distinction of rigor and comprehensiveness that separates traditional literature reviews from systematic reviews.