Description:

This Master Prompt would focus on strengthening methodological transparency and reporting quality while preserving the interpretive flexibility that distinguishes narrative review from fully systematic evidence synthesis. It would guide researchers in documenting search and selection decisions, authorial judgment, synthesis procedures, evidence limitations, potential conflicts of interest, reporting choices, and sources of bias.

A major emphasis would be placed on addressing selection bias, confirmation bias, citation bias, interpretive subjectivity, disciplinary bias, publication bias, and overreliance on influential or convenient sources. Researchers would use reporting frameworks such as SANRA or other appropriate guidance where applicable without incorrectly representing a narrative review as a systematic review. Transparency would be treated as a means of making scholarly judgment inspectable rather than eliminating interpretation from the review.

This theme is particularly important because the methodological literature describes narrative review as flexible and interpretive, while contemporary examples increasingly introduce structured searches and explicit reporting procedures to strengthen credibility.