Regarding what I have learned about systematic reviews while personally conducting one, random sampling the articles you find during your search would not be an option. Typically, systematic reviews follow PRISMA guidelines: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

Systematic reviews have very strict guidelines and methods that you must follow, including synthesizing data and information from all of the articles that meet the criteria for your search.

It sounds as though a narrative review would be your best option, based on the approach you have described. This is just my humble response, but others may be able to share more in order to further help you with your methodology.

@Jordan Schueler already explained the procedure. I also recommend the PRISMA statement. Maybe it could be an option to refine your inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to narrow and specify your focus? What are the important aspects for your work in dependence of the objectives? Maybe you could provide more information about your review here for refinement.

Good answers from Jordan and Tamara. Wafa - a narrative/integrative/systematic review is 'systematic' by way of the fact that it includes all that meet your current inclusion criteria. You could consider other options that allow you the opportunity to 'cherry-pick' a proportion of key literature that you have found overall - such as concept analysis or discourse analysis. They are qualitative approaches that follow their one methodology and produce different outcomes to reviews - but might be worth exploring.

Tamara Schloemer Jordan Schueler thank you for your response. would my approach be valid/justified if its a narrative review?

I aim to describe the current state of statistical reporting in Quality Improvement studies ( the general field) For example, some studies may not report the threshold where they would have considered their results to be statistically significant; which is crucial information for the reader to know. So my results are a description of the current state of reporting as its not standerdised yet.

Dean Whitehead Thank you Dean. Would you recommend a reference for those qualitative approaches?

Wafa - your response to Tamara and Jordan doesn't seem to be a narrative review. In such a review you look for what 'emerges' - rather than a pre-determined thing like stats thresholds.

The attached chapter may assist on conducting a literature review. It's nursing-related - but the principles are generic. I also attach an example of a concept analysis and a discourse analysis.

I understand that your topic is broad. If you are reviewing the current state of statistical reporting you could refine inclusion criteria and argue that you set your focus e.g. on publications of the last 5 years or limit publication dates as it is suitable for your aim. This could reduce the number of full texts for your analysis with a good reason. Could this be an option?

I would suggest you relook at your research question using PICO formula, then further define your research terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria within a specific timeframe. Good luck