Introduction

The narrative review is one of the most common ways of presenting and understanding the existing literature in a scientific field. Its use has been established not only in medicine and the social sciences but also in wider research areas, as it allows the author to organize and interpret available data in a way that is not restricted by strict methodological frameworks. In contrast to systematic reviews, which are based on strict protocols of searching, selecting, and analyzing sources, narrative reviews focus more on interpretation, critique, and synthesis of knowledge. This greater freedom makes the method particularly useful in cases where a comprehensive, descriptive, and interpretative presentation of the research field is required.

Characteristics of the Narrative Review

The narrative review is characterized by flexibility and descriptiveness. It does not adopt standardized criteria for selecting studies but relies on the researcher’s judgment, who decides which sources are most relevant or representative for the purpose of the review. This feature may lead to selectivity, yet at the same time it offers the opportunity for in-depth analysis and interpretation with greater freedom. The absence of strict methodological constraints means that narrative reviews can include different types of sources, even research data that may be heterogeneous in terms of methodology or results. In this way, the author can reflect the complexity of a subject and highlight its conflicting aspects, offering the reader a more comprehensive and multifaceted view.

Purpose and Significance

The main purpose of a narrative review is to synthesize and present existing knowledge on a specific subject. By analyzing different studies, the researcher may reach general conclusions, identify weaknesses or gaps in the literature, and suggest new directions for future research. Narrative reviews are especially valuable for understanding the development of a theory or a practice, since they can trace the course of a scientific dialogue over time. They also provide a comprehensive picture to readers who wish to be informed about a field without consulting a multitude of individual studies. Their value therefore lies not only in collecting information but also in the ability of the author to highlight trends, convergences, and divergences that emerge across the literature.

Methodology and Structure

The methodology of a narrative review is not governed by strict protocols, unlike systematic ones. The selection of sources depends on the researcher’s experience, criteria, and preferences. This provides flexibility but also the risk of bias. The structure often followed is that of the IMRAD model (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), which offers clarity and coherence to the final text. However, the narrative nature of the review allows the author to adapt the organization according to the needs of the study and the target audience. In any case, a narrative review does not limit itself to the dry presentation of data but seeks to interpret, connect, and critically evaluate the findings.

Advantages

The narrative review offers important advantages. It allows the broader context of a scientific field to be presented in a clear and accessible way. It facilitates the mapping of the development of ideas, the identification of debates within the scientific community, and the highlighting of issues that require further investigation. It also contributes to education, helping students and new researchers to quickly grasp the trajectory of a subject area. Through its narrative approach, science becomes more approachable and gains a human dimension, as the author takes on an active role in the transmission of knowledge.

Disadvantages

Despite these benefits, the narrative review also presents significant drawbacks. The most important is the potential for bias, since the selection of studies is not always based on objective criteria but often depends on the author’s judgment. This may lead to incomplete or limited coverage of the subject. The heterogeneity of the sources used, differences in data collection methods, and the possible absence of essential information in some studies make it difficult to draw clear conclusions. Furthermore, narrative reviews are not always updated systematically to include the most recent research, which reduces their relevance in fast-developing fields.

Conclusion

In summary, the narrative review is a particularly useful tool in scientific research, as it enables the comprehensive depiction and interpretation of a field with greater freedom and flexibility compared to systematic methods. Despite its limitations, it contributes decisively to the understanding of scientific knowledge, the monitoring of the development of theories and practices, and the identification of new research perspectives. Although it cannot be considered a strictly evidence-based method, its value lies in its ability to connect scattered information into a coherent narrative. The narrative review therefore represents an integral part of scientific dialogue, offering a bridge between data accumulation and the creative synthesis of knowledge.