Editor in Chief, Journal of Sport Biomechanics
In general segmentation, review studies are divided into two groups: narrative reviews and systematic reviews. The research methods for narrative and systematic reviews are completely different. Narrative review articles can be written based on the interests of the researcher, which is one of the weaknesses of this style of review. In contrast, systematic review articles have an organized structure and are more reliable. Narrative reviews cover diverse topics such as epidemiological findings, concepts and hypotheses of certain psychiatric diseases, current understandings of specific diseases, psychopharmacology, and treatment guidelines (1). This reflects the fact that systematic reviews have been rapidly and increasingly replacing traditional narrative (explicit) reviews as the standard platform for providing and updating currently available research findings as confident evidence.
Most journals have changed their policy regarding the acceptance of review papers, giving priority to systematic reviews as regular review articles and excluding narrative reviews to provide the best evidence for all basic and clinical questions and further hypotheses. The major advantage of systematic reviews is that they are based on the findings of comprehensive and systematic literature searches across all available resources, minimizing selection bias and avoiding subjective selection. Review articles come in various forms, differing in word count, style, and result presentation. However, for students and researchers, grasping the key distinctions between narrative and systematic reviews is crucial.
Narrative reviews are ideal for comprehensive topics. They synthesize primary research on a subject, prioritizing quality over quantity. Unlike other review types, narrative reviews do not require a single hypothesis or a strictly methodical approach. Instead, they offer a platform for researchers to discuss existing models, and hypotheses, and provide a general critique of the field, often drawing on the author's knowledge and experience. A significant advantage of narrative reviews is their ability to summarize existing research, preventing redundant studies. However, the lack of a predefined and systematic methodology is a drawback (2). This means authors might not report details like search methods, databases used, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. Consequently, bias in article selection can influence the overall results.
Systematic reviews, on the other hand, concentrate on a single, well-defined question. The entire structure of the article revolves around answering this primary question through evidence presentation and analysis. Systematic reviews follow a well-organized structure, including:
1- Clearly defined research questions
2- Precise research protocol
3- Exhaustive database searches
4- Defined inclusion and exclusion criteria
5- Quality assessment of included articles
6- A highly organized presentation that addresses the research question with minimal bias
The results of such reviews are generally more reliable and can be replicated by other researchers using the same methods (3). Overall, both narrative and systematic reviews play valuable roles in research. Understanding their strengths and weaknesses allows researchers to choose the most appropriate approach for their specific needs.

Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
This article is a letter to the editor and does not directly use any human or animal samples.
Funding
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors.
Authors' contributions
All authors equally contributed to the preparation of this article.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.