SANRA is a scale developed to assess the quality of narrative review articles. Unlike systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials, there is no existing tool for evaluating narrative reviews. The scale was created by three experienced journal editors who revised an earlier version based on face validity, item-total correlations, and reliability scores. They removed an item related to manuscript accessibility due to poor inter-rater reliability. The revised scale consists of six items rated from 0 (low standard) to 2 (high standard), covering the importance and aims of the review, literature search, referencing, evidence level, and relevant endpoint data. Anchor definitions and examples were provided to guide users. The scale was tested on 30 non-systematic review manuscripts, with raters confirming its feasibility in editorial work. The mean sum score was 6.0 out of 12, with moderate inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.77). While internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.68) and item-total correlations were sufficient, further testing is needed. SANRA is recommended for use in editorial decision-making, complementing journal-specific evaluations. It may improve the quality of non-systematic reviews by helping editors, reviewers, and authors assess and enhance narrative reviews. The scale is brief, practical, and suitable for everyday use. However, it is not a comprehensive tool for all aspects of review quality, such as originality or table quality. The authors suggest rater training and note that results are specific to the study setting. SANRA is available open access.SANRA is a scale developed to assess the quality of narrative review articles. Unlike systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials, there is no existing tool for evaluating narrative reviews. The scale was created by three experienced journal editors who revised an earlier version based on face validity, item-total correlations, and reliability scores. They removed an item related to manuscript accessibility due to poor inter-rater reliability. The revised scale consists of six items rated from 0 (low standard) to 2 (high standard), covering the importance and aims of the review, literature search, referencing, evidence level, and relevant endpoint data. Anchor definitions and examples were provided to guide users. The scale was tested on 30 non-systematic review manuscripts, with raters confirming its feasibility in editorial work. The mean sum score was 6.0 out of 12, with moderate inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.77). While internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.68) and item-total correlations were sufficient, further testing is needed. SANRA is recommended for use in editorial decision-making, complementing journal-specific evaluations. It may improve the quality of non-systematic reviews by helping editors, reviewers, and authors assess and enhance narrative reviews. The scale is brief, practical, and suitable for everyday use. However, it is not a comprehensive tool for all aspects of review quality, such as originality or table quality. The authors suggest rater training and note that results are specific to the study setting. SANRA is available open access.