Set boundaries before searching
Define the question, date range where justified, source types, languages and disciplinary databases. Keep a record of search terms and decisions. A narrative review can be selective, but claims of an exhaustive or systematic search require methods that support them.
Build an evidence matrix
For each relevant source, record its question, context, methods, principal findings and limitations. Add a note explaining how it relates to your project. Group studies by the issue they address so that agreement and disagreement become visible.
- Separate primary studies from reviews and opinion pieces.
- Distinguish the source’s results from your interpretation.
- Record full bibliographic details and the location of key evidence.
- Check corrections or retractions before relying on a source.
Move from description to synthesis
A paragraph should make a supported point, compare evidence and explain its relevance. Avoid one paragraph per author when a thematic comparison would be clearer. We can identify unsupported generalizations, missing counterevidence and transitions that do not establish the claimed gap.
Keep the gap proportional to the evidence
A gap may concern a population, method, context, explanation or conflicting result. Explain what the proposed study can add without claiming that nothing has ever been published. If the task is a systematic review or meta-analysis, discuss the separate protocol and synthesis requirements.
Scope, files and delivery
Start with a short project brief. We assess the work, discuss the expertise required and confirm the deliverables, fee, schedule and included revisions in writing. Share the current version and the instructions that govern it. Additional data, a new target journal or a substantially changed brief may require a revised scope. You review the proposed changes and retain responsibility for the research.