Primarily, articles that have a purpose get cited. Reviews generally get cited the most, but there are research areas in which there is basically a new review every month and people just are getting more annoyed by the next review with the almost identical content except for two new papers that came out in the meantime.

So, if you want to publish something, do it because you have something to say and choose the format accordingly.

In general, review articles, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, tend to accumulate more citations than individual research papers (originals). This is because reviews synthesize and summarize a broader body of research, offering a comprehensive overview of a topic and often identifying gaps in knowledge, which can be valuable to a wider audience and stimulate further research.Review papers tend to get way more citations than practical work (mainly from people that need a citation for a concept and just cite the first reference they find on scholar that looks like a survey).A systematic review and meta-analysis is a type of research article, rather than a review (narrative review). In the scientific point of view, the type of article it is belonging to does not matters. It only matters when your system of promotion gives different points to original article and review.