ArticleCureus2025
Clarifying Research Article Classifications: A Proposal for Defining Original Studies, Systematic, Scoping, Integrative, and Narrative Reviews, and Case Reports.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The infraorbital vein: embryology, anatomy, histology, variations, and clinical relevance.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Review
- Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine for Cardiovascular Disease Management in Mental Healthcare: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The academic publishing landscape increasingly demands precision in research reporting and article classification. However, confusion persists over the distinctions between original studies and systematic, scoping, integrative, and narrative reviews, particularly when studies use secondary or aggregated data. This paper critically examines the defining features of each article type, highlights frequent misconceptions in peer review (e.g., the expectation for systematic data extraction in narrative reviews), and proposes a clear taxonomy based on methodological rigor and knowledge generation. We argue that originality should be defined by creating new knowledge, not by the exclusive use of primary data. Through literature examples and classification criteria, we call for harmonization across journals and editorial policies to improve clarity, transparency, and the integrity of scientific reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.