The term Systematic Review is now used for many types of review . Different types have different aims and purposes so make sure you know which type you are doing and why.
All types have this in common: they use clearly stated, reproducible methods to identify relevant literature to address a specific question or problem; then use a rigorous method to appraise, evaluate and summarise that information.
For a comprehensive list of reviews, please see the University of Melbourne's library guide, Which review is that?
More detailed information an be found in this article which gives a detailed description of the uses, strengths and weakness of each review type.
Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Systematic review : Originally meant a review of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) with a meta-analysis of the data extracted from those trials to create a more powerful synthesis of that data to enhance clinical decision making. This has more recently been broadened to include non-RCT studies when necessary. Example.
Meta-analysis always involves a related systematic review and uses statistical techniques to re-analyses the quantitative evidence. Example.
Meta-synthesis is a technique which enable qualitative evidence from multiple papers to be synthesised to reveal new understandings. Example.
Umbrella review: a review of systematic reviews. This involves more statistical analysis to reveal the best evidence from a number of existing SRs. Example.
Integrative review: this is a mixed-methods systematic review which aims to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence on one topic and synthesise them into one coherent picture. More information. Example.
Mapping review or Evidence map: Also called Evidence-gap maps or EGMs. Another technique to re-analuse existing reviews and other evidence. These provide a visual overview of existing evidence and reveal evidence gaps. More information. Example.
Scoping review: In many disciplines the scoping review has now replaced the older narrative review . Scoping reviews use the same methods to collect and filter the literature that is followed by a systematic review, but instead of analysing or synthesising the evidence, the aim is to gain a comprehensive overview of a field in order to evaluate the current state of research and identify research gaps. For this reason it is often an ideal first step in research agendas, including honours, PhD and other projects. Example.
Systematized review. These us a SR methodology to identify candidate articles but often have a less rigorous analysis. These often function in a similar manner to Scoping Reviews in forming the first review of an ongoing research project. Example.