OBJECTIVES: Non-systematic structured literature reviews (reviews with pre-specified strategy and eligibility criteria, e.g. targeted/scoping/rapid reviews) offer a lower resource alternative to systematic reviews (SLRs), but with higher reliability than narrative reviews. We evaluated the types of literature reviews informing policy documents and clinical guidelines to assess methods used for evidence identification.

METHODS: A targeted review was conducted in May-June 2024, using a pre-specified protocol to identify guidelines, briefings and position/white papers published since January 2023 by 16 health policy and clinical guidelines organizations.

RESULTS: 265 records were included: 122 policy papers, 18 policy guidelines and 125 clinical guidelines.

Among policy papers, 31/122 (25.4%) relied on structured reviews. Thirteen of these conducted original reviews, classified by the authors as: SLR, n=1; systemic, n=1; rapid, n=4; scoping, n=3; environmental scan, n=1; type not specified, n=3. Eighteen further papers referenced existing structured reviews: 15 referenced ≥1 SLR; 3 referenced only rapid/scoping reviews. No policy guidelines conducted structured reviews, and most (12/18, 66.7%) did not reference structured reviews.

Among clinical guidelines, 87/125 (69.6%) conducted structured reviews: SLR, n=36; targeted/pragmatic, n=3; type not specified, n=48. Of the remainder, 32/125 (25.6%) guidelines did not conduct structured reviews but referenced ≥1 SLR; only 6/125 (4.8%) did not rely on structured reviews.

CONCLUSIONS: Most clinical guidelines conducted original structured reviews. In contrast, only a minority of identified policy papers did so. In both areas, methodology reporting was often inadequate, and there was a lack of alignment in terminology used to describe non-systematic structured reviews. More consistent use of non-systematic structured reviews, such as scoping/rapid reviews, can improve the quality of evidence identification compared with narrative reviews. Clear guidance for conducting and reporting these is needed to strengthen the robustness of the evidence base, in particular in health policy and other areas where SLRs may not be feasible.