- Image:
Evidence Reviews
and Evaluations
Matrix evidence reviews and evaluations provide decision makers with a comprehensive global synthesis of the effectiveness of different policy choices and investment options.
These evidence reviews are conducted based on need – ranging from a preliminary narrative review to determine an ‘evidence landscape,’ to a full, systematic identification and synthesis of all available evidence on an issue. Our reviewers have access to over 23,000 journals, 100,000 conference proceedings, and 700 million cited references, and are fluent in over 20 languages, enabling us to leverage foreign language materials from around the globe.
Click on the 4 types of evidence reviews in the diagram below for more details on how each one can meet your various levels of need and inform the key decisions that you make for your organization.
Narrative Review
Provide selective information on a specific topic, in a very short time. Narrative reviews help customers understand prevailing knowledge about an issue, with a fast-turnaround synthesis of current thinking, general answers to broad questions, and a selective overview of key concerns.
Quick Scoping Reviews
Involve a more thorough search of the research literature than narrative reviews. Leaders use these reviews when they need a map of the evidence available on a particular question, often as a first stage in developing a more thorough synthesis. A scoping review answers specific, focused questions (e.g. whether a given type of intervention is effective) or develops an overview of issues in a broader field. A scoping review’s value is its ability to provide an objective assessment of the published evidence landscape in a short timeframe.
Rapid Evidence Assessments (REAs)
Provide a more comprehensive synthesis than scoping reviews. We develop our methodology for this type of review in consultation with the customer and key stakeholders, to ensure that we use appropriate methods leading to conclusions that are directly relevant to policy or practice. Rapid evidence assessments incorporate all relevant sources, including unpublished literature. They are valuable when customers need a robust synthesis of available evidence but lack time or resources for a full systematic review. Rapid evidence assessments can answer a wide variety of questions, including those regarding the way specific interventions work, comparative effectiveness of interventions, causal relationships among observed phenomena, and people’s attitudes and experiences when specific interventions have been introduced.
Systematic Reviews
Answer ‘What works?’ questions. They provide the most complete and reliable picture of evidence on efficacy. Customers, stakeholders, and external topic experts provide feedback throughout the review to focus the question precisely and ensure relevant results. Search strategies ensure that all relevant references are included. Full systematic reviews provide the best possible synthesis of the available evidence, and are essential for high-risk policy decisions. They provide a level of detail and robustness that more rapid and less resource-intensive synthesis methods cannot.
