The QR Method: A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Narrative Review
Keywords:
systematic review, narrative review, scoping review, scientific article, scientific writingAbstract
Introduction: Narrative reviews have been widely used in research, but they lack standardized methods, especially in the social sciences and humanities. Hence, the objective of establishing the QR method (Questions & Reproducibility) is to improve the rigor and transparency of these reviews.
Methods: The study adopted a qualitative approach and longitudinally used the systematization of experiences in five editions of a scientific writing course. A total of 126 social science and humanities students participated, forming a training group. In addition, interviews with experts and bibliometric analysis were conducted.
Results: The findings show that the application of the QR method significantly improves the quality of narrative reviews, highlighting a higher index of (1) structure, (2) argumentative coherence, (3) methodological rigor and traceability, and (4) effective completion. Interviews with experts confirmed the need to provide narrative reviews with clear methodological structures that respect their interpretive flexibility, highlighting the principles of guiding questions and reproducibility as central axes. Bibliometric analysis revealed sustained growth in this type of review, with a predominance in biomedical areas and scarce representation in the social sciences, as well as a notable absence of specific methodological guidelines, reinforcing the relevance of the proposed method.
Conclusion: The QR method has established itself as an effective approach for narrative reviews, improving their clarity, replicability, and standardization, and enabling them to constitute a theoretical-contextual synthesis based on the best available scientific evidence. The study has some limitations, like the small number of experts interviewed and the focus on social sciences and humanities, which limits how much it can be generalized. It's recommended to validate the QR method in other disciplines and real publishing contexts. Future research could follow up on its application in high-impact journals and AI-assisted environments.
Downloads
References
AKOBENG, A. K. (2005). Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90(8), 845-848. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.058230
ALAJAMI, A. (2021). Critiquing the past for solidifying the future: Understanding the synthesizing facet of reviewing the social studies: Critical approach. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100047
ARKSEY, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 19-32. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
BAETHGE, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S., & Mertens, S. (2019). SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8
BAHL, M. (2023). A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article. Journal of Breast Imaging, 5(4), 480-485. https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028
BASHEER, A. (2022). The Art and Science of Writing Narrative Reviews. International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research, 9(2), 124. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijamr.ijamr_234_22
BAUMEISTER, R. F., & LEARY, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311-320. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311
BERTIN, M., & ATANASSOVA, I. (2014). A Study of Lexical Distribution in Citation Contexts through the IMRaD Standard. BIR@ECIR. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Study-of-Lexical-Distribution-in-Citation-through-Bertin-Atanassova/f8a7e3d914a1ba10817bc47817da14718571c2eb
CALLCUT, R. A., & BRANSON, R. D. (2009). How to read a review paper. Respiratory Care, 54(10), 1379-1385. Scopus.
CHANEY, M. A. (2021). So You Want to Write a Narrative Review Article? Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 35(10), 3045-3049. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2021.06.017
CIPRIANI, A., & GEDDES, J. (2003). Comparison of systematic and narrative reviews: The example of the atypical antipsychotics. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 12(3), 146-153. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1121189X00002918
COLLINS, J. A., & FAUSER, B. C. J. M. (2005). Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Human Reproduction Update, 11(2), 103-104. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmh058
CORDEIRO, A. M., DE OLIVEIRA, G. M., RENTERÍA, J. M., & GUIMARÃES, C. A. (2007). Systematic review: A narrative review. Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes, 34(6), 428-431. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-69912007000600012
CRONIN, M. A., & GEORGE, E. (2023). The Why and How of the Integrative Review. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 168-192. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935507
CRONIN, P., RYAN, F., & COUGHLAN, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing), 17(1), 38-43. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059
CROWTHER, D. M. (2013). A clinician’s guide to systematic reviews. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 28(4), 459-462. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884533613490742
DAY, R. (2005). Cómo escribir y publicar artículos científicos (3a ed). Servicio Editorial de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud. http://www.bvs.hn/Honduras/pdf/Comoescribirypublicar.pdf
DHILLON, P. (2022). How to write a good scientific review article. FEBS Journal, 289(13), 3592-3602. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.16565
DONTHU, N., KUMAR, S., MUKHERJEE, D., PANDEY, N., & LIM, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
EGUÍA, R. A. (2014). ¿Revisión sistemática, revisión narrativa o metaanálisis? Revista de la Sociedad Espanola del Dolor, 21(6), 359-360. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.4321/s1134-80462014000600010
ESLAVA-SCHMALBACH, J., & GILBERTO GÓMEZ-DUARTE, O. (2013). La escritura científica, un aspecto olvidado de la formación profesional. Colombian Journal of Anestesiology, 41(2), 79-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rca.2013.04.001
FEGERT, J. M., VITIELLO, B., PLENER, P. L., & CLEMENS, V. (2020). Challenges and burden of the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for child and adolescent mental health: A narrative review to highlight clinical and research needs in the acute phase and the long return to normality. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 14(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-020-00329-3
FERRARI, R. (2015). Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329
GASPARYAN, A. Y., AYVAZYAN, L., BLACKMORE, H., & KITAS, G. D. (2011). Writing a narrative biomedical review: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatology International, 31(11), 1409-1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3
GHASEMI, M. R., MOONAGHI, H. K., & HEYDARI, A. (2020). Strategies for sustaining and enhancing nursing students’ engagement in academic and clinical settings: A narrative review. Korean Journal of Medical Education, 32(2), 103-117. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3946/KJME.2020.159
GREEN, B. N., JOHNSON, C. D., & ADAMS, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101-117. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6
GREENHALGH, T., THORNE, S., & MALTERUD, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(6). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931
GREGORY, A. T., & DENNISS, A. R. (2018). An Introduction to Writing Narrative and Systematic Reviews—Tasks, Tips and Traps for Aspiring Authors. Heart Lung and Circulation, 27(7), 893-898. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2018.03.027
GUSENBAUER, M., & GAUSTER, S. P. (2025). How to search for literature in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comprehensive step-by-step guide. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 212, 123833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123833
HENRY, B. M., SKINNINGSRUD, B., VIKSE, J., PEKALA, P. A., WALOCHA, J. A., LOUKAS, M., TUBBS, R. S., & TOMASZEWSKI, K. A. (2018). Systematic reviews versus narrative reviews in clinical anatomy: Methodological approaches in the era of evidence-based anatomy. Clinical Anatomy, 31(3), 364-367. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23042
KMET, L. M., COOK, L. S., & LEE, R. C. (2004, febrero 1). Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. ERA. https://doi.org/10.7939/R37M04F16
KORETZ, R. L., & LIPMAN, T. O. (2017). Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 41(3), 316-323. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607116661841
KUHBERGER, A., SCHERNDL, T., LUDWIG, B., & SIMON, D. M. (2016). Comparative evaluation of narrative reviews and meta-analyses. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 224(3), 145-156. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000250
LAM DÍAZ, R. M. (2016). La redacción de un artículo científico. Revista Cubana de Hematología, Inmunología y Hemoterapia, 32(1), 57-69.
MCLEAN, S. A., JARMAN, H. K., & RODGERS, R. F. (2019). How do «selfies» impact adolescents’ well-being and body confidence? A narrative review. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 513-521. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S177834
MULROW, C. D., THACKER, S. B., & PUGH, J. A. (1988). A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Annals of Internal Medicine, 108(4), 613-615. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-108-4-613
MURILLO, F. J., MARTÍNEZ-GARRIDO, C., & BELAVI, G. (2017). Tips for Writing a Good Scientific Article in Education. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educacion, 15(3), 5-34. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2017.15.3.001
MURPHY, C. M. (2012). Writing an Effective Review Article. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 8(2), 89-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-012-0234-2
ORAN, D. P., & TOPOL, E. J. (2020). Prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. A narrative review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 173(5), 362-368. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-3012
PAE, C.-U. (2015). Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investigation, 12(3), 417-419. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2015.12.3.417
PAGE, M. J., MCKENZIE, J. E., BOSSUYT, P. M., BOUTRON, I., HOFFMANN, T. C., MULROW, C. D., SHAMSEER, L., TETZLAFF, J. M., AKL, E. A., BRENNAN, S. E., CHOU, R., GLANVILLE, J., GRIMSHAW, J. M., HRÓBJARTSSON, A., LALU, M. M., LI, T., LODER, E. W., MAYO-WILSON, E., MCDONALD, S., … MOHER, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
PAUTASSO, M. (2019). The Structure and Conduct of a Narrative Literature Review. En A Guide to the Scientific Career (pp. 299-310). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118907283.ch31
ROTHER, E. T. (2007). Systematic literature review X narrative review. ACTA Paulista de Enfermagem, 20(2), v-x. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-21002007000200001
SIDDAWAY, A. P., WOOD, A. M., & HEDGES, L. V. (2019). How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747-770. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
SKELLY, M., DUONG, A., SIMUNOVIC, N., & AYENI, O. R. (2019). Type of review and how to get started. En Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research: A Practical Guide and Case Based Research Approach (pp. 323-327). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_36
SMITH, S. A., & DUNCAN, A. A. (2022). Systematic and scoping reviews: A comparison and overview. Seminars in Vascular Surgery, 35(4), 464-469. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.09.001
SOLLACI, L. B., & PEREIRA, M. G. (2004). The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: A fifty-year survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3), 364-371.
SUKHERA, J. (2022). Narrative Reviews: Flexible, Rigorous, and Practical. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(4), 414. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1
TEODOSIU, M. (2019). Scientific writing and publishing with Imrad. Annals of Forest Research, 62(2), 201-214. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2019.1759
THEILE, C. M., & Beall, A. L. (2024). Narrative Reviews of the Literature: An overview. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 98(1), 78-82. Scopus.
TRICCO, A. C., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Kastner, M., Macdonald, H., Cogo, E., Lillie, E., Tran, J., & Straus, S. E. (2016). Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: A scoping review reveals poor operationalization of the methodological steps. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 29-35. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.011
TRICCO, A. C., LILLIE, E., ZARIN, W., O’BRIEN, K. K., COLQUHOUN, H., LEVAC, D., MOHER, D., PETERS, M. D. J., HORSLEY, T., WEEKS, L., HEMPEL, S., AKL, E. A., CHANG, C., MCGOWAN, J., STEWART, L., HARTLING, L., ALDCROFT, A., WILSON, M. G., GARRITTY, C., … STRAUS, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-473. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
WEILENMANN, A.-K. (2014). A new paradigm for the scientific article. Information Services and Use, 34(3-4), 315-319. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-140753
WONG, G., GREENHALGH, T., WESTHORP, G., BUCKINGHAM, J., & PAWSON, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Medicine, 11(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-20
WU, J. (2011). Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond. Landscape Ecology, 26(10), 1345-1349. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9674-3
YANG, X., DING, L., WANG, W., & YANG, J. (2025). Identification of interdisciplinary research patterns based on the functional structures of IMRaD. Information Processing and Management, 62(3). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104063
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Angel Deroncele Acosta
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Usted es libre de:
Compartir — copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato
Adaptar — remezclar, transformar y construir a partir del material
La licenciante no puede revocar estas libertades en tanto usted siga los términos de la licencia
Bajo los siguientes términos:
Usted es libre de:
Atribución — Usted debe dar crédito de manera adecuada, brindar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que usted o su uso tienen el apoyo de la licenciante.
NoComercial — Usted no puede hacer uso del material con propósitos comerciales.
No hay restricciones adicionales — No puede aplicar términos legales ni medidas tecnológicas que restrinjan legalmente a otras a hacer cualquier uso permitido por la licencia.
