Integrative reviews (IRs) refer to a type of evidence synthesis that seeks to comprehensively examine, critique, and synthesize literature on a given topic in order to generate new frameworks, perspectives, or understandings. Unlike traditional systematic reviews that typically restrict inclusion to specific study designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials), IRs may incorporate diverse forms of evidence, including experimental and non-experimental studies, qualitative research, theoretical papers, and empirical reports. This breadth enables the reviewer to explore complex, multifaceted phenomena that cannot be adequately captured through a single methodological lens. IRs are frequently used in nursing, education, management, and other applied disciplines where knowledge is dispersed across methodological traditions.
Definition
"[Integrative reviews refer to]....a review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem (Broome 1993)".
Integrative reviews, thus, have the potential to build nursing science, informing research, practice, and policy initiatives. Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy.
The aim of an integrative review is to provide a comprehensive understanding of a topic. Some types of reviews, such as systematic reviews or qualitative syntheses, are limited to empirical studies using a specific research design.
Diverse sources of information are needed to describe and understand a topic. Integrative reviews include both empirical and theoretical literature and include studies based on varied research designs. Because these reviews include multiple sources of information, they can lead to a better understanding of complex concepts, theories, and the state of the science on a topic.
Methodologically, IRs aim to retain systematic features such as transparent search strategies, explicit inclusion criteria, and structured data analysis while allowing conceptual flexibility in synthesis. Authors typically engage in iterative comparison, thematic analysis, or model development to integrate findings across sources.
The goal is not merely aggregation of results, but generating higher-order interpretation, conceptual clarity, and/or theoretical advancement. However, because integrative reviews combine multiple evidence types and borrow elements from other review methodologies, questions sometimes arise regarding standardization, reporting guidelines, and protocol development. Clear articulation of purpose, scope, and analytic procedures is therefore essential to ensure rigour and credibility in this review type.
Integrative reviews draw selectively from multiple established review approaches. They are described as a form of systematic review that includes all study designs and positioned as suitable for complex topics. However, methods for synthesizing complex evidence already exist, including complex reviews, mixed methods reviews, and realist reviews.
The tradition of IRs is strong in business and nursing scholarship. Where diverse disciplines, theoretical perspectives, or empirical traditions are combined, the work may be labeled an integrative review. Given the conceptual ambiguity and porous methodological boundaries of this review type, it is unclear whether protocol development, registration, or formal reporting standards are required.
There are no established methodological or reporting guidelines for IRs comparable to those for scoping reviews, umbrella reviews, overviews, or systematic reviews. Major organizations such as Cochrane, JBI, and the EQUATOR Network do not appear to provide dedicated guidance for this review type. However, some of the major figures that have written for this review type are included in the references below.
When to use
To review experimental and non-experimental research simultaneously, to define concepts, to review theories, to review evidence/point out gaps in the literature, to analyze methodological issues. Good for nursing issues.
To examine a phenomenon of interest rather than a systematic review of an intervention; allows for integration of diverse research, which may contain theoretical and methodological literature to address the aim of the review; supports a wide range of inquiry, such as defining concepts, reviewing theories, or analyzing methodological issues; examines complexity more broadly by using diverse data sources
Systematic, rigorous integrative reviews have the potential to present a comprehensive understanding of problems relevant to health care and policy. Integrative reviews include diverse data sources which enhance a holistic understanding of the topic of interest. However, combining diverse data sources is complex and challenging. An updated methodology of integrative reviews includes a more systematic and rigorous approach to the process, particularly to data analysis. Employing techniques of mixed method or qualitative research to this process has the potential to decrease bias and error. Integrative reviews can subsequently play a greater role in evidence-based practice initiatives, portraying the complexity inherent in all health care problems of concern to nursing.
Limitations
The combination and complexity of incorporating diverse methodologies can contribute to lack of rigor, inaccuracy, and bias, methods of analysis, synthesis, and conclusion-drawing remain poorly formulated, issues related to combining empirical and theoretical reports.
There is currently no reporting guideline for integrative reviews.
Using AI in integrative reviews
AI-powered discovery and synthesis tools may support integrative reviews (IRs). Platforms such as Consensus, Elicit.com, EvidenceHunt, Perplexity and Undermind.ai use large language models (LLMs) and can assist in finding relevant studies and identify patterns across heterogeneous literatures. These tools can be useful where diverse study designs and theoretical sources must be located and compared.
Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT can assist with refining search terms, developing conceptual groupings, drafting data extraction templates, and iteratively synthesizing themes. However, AI outputs should be treated as supportive rather than authoritative: search strategies must remain transparent and reproducible, citations must be verified against primary sources, and analytic decisions must remain under researcher control. Used judiciously, these tools can enhance efficiency and conceptual exploration while maintaining methodological rigour.
Note: because many of the AI-powered search tools draw on semantic scholar to locate papers, much of the same research will be found if you search several of them in support of an integrative review. Instead, search a range of subscription based bibliographic databases such as CINAHL, PsycInfo and other social science databases that index literature outside of semantic scholar; it will be necessary to test and create robust expansive strategies to search for diverse sources in the monographic, unpublished and grey literatures.
Presentation
Prof. Matthew A. Cronin (George Mason University) provides an overview to integrative reviews, which can provide important insights into the current state of research on a topic, and recommend future research directions. He discusses different types of reviews and outlines an approach to writing an integrative review. He includes guidance regarding challenges encountered when composing integrative reviews, such as fair representation of different perspectives, and synthesizing that knowledge to yield new insights. Integrative reviews are of unique value among other types of knowledge synthesis vehicles, such as narrative or systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Each has distinctive but important approaches to synthesizing empirical knowledge; the protocol for writing integrative reviews is designed to complement these other knowledge synthesis vehicles in order to best advance organization science.
Elsbach KD, van Knippenberg D. Creating high-impact literature reviews: an argument for integrative reviews. J Manag Stud. 2020;57(6):1277–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12581
Broome ME. Integrative literature reviews for the development of concepts. In: Concept Development in Nursing, 2nd ed (Rodgers B.L. & Knafl K.A., eds), W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1993. pp. 231–250.
Elsbach KD, van Knippenberg D. Creating high-impact literature reviews: an argument for integrative reviews. J Manag Stud. 2020;57(6):1277–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12581
Harris M. Cooper HM. Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Rev Educ Res. 1982;52(2):291-302. doi:10.3102/00346543052002291
Hopia H, Latvala E, Liimatainen L. Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016;30(4):662–669. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12327
Russell L. Whitemore RL, Kathleen Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546-553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
