Systematic, narrative, scoping or rapid reviews - when, why and how to choose the best option in pharmacy education

Literature reviews serve as essential tools for synthesizing existing research, enabling researchers to develop robust conclusions that extend beyond individual studies. This methodological manuscript examines the distinct characteristics and applications of four literature review approaches: systematic reviews, narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and rapid reviews. Systematic reviews represent the gold standard for evidence synthesis, employing rigorous, transparent, and replicable methods guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to minimize bias and provide comprehensive analysis of focused research questions. These reviews utilize predetermined protocols for systematic searching, critical appraisal, and data synthesis to generate definitive conclusions with clear policy and practice implications. Narrative reviews offer flexibility for exploring complex topics through subjective examination and critique of literature bodies. This umbrella methodology encompasses various subtypes including state-of-the-art, meta-ethnographic, meta-narrative, critical, and integrative reviews, each providing interpretive insights and theoretical advancement opportunities for both under-researched and well-established fields. Scoping reviews excel at mapping research landscapes and identifying knowledge gaps through comprehensive literature charting. Following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and PRISMA-scoping review reporting standards, these reviews clarify conceptual boundaries, examine research methodologies, and inform future research directions without emphasizing critical appraisal or statistical synthesis. Rapid reviews adapt systematic review methodology for urgent decision-making contexts, providing timely evidence synthesis while maintaining methodological integrity through strategic acceleration of review processes. Understanding the appropriate applications and methodological requirements of each approach enables researchers to select optimal review methodologies that maximize impact and utility for specific research questions, audiences, and contextual requirements, ultimately advancing evidence-based decision-making across diverse domains.