How do I choose the right papers to write a review paper?
If there was an easy algorithm to determine, which papers are important for a topic and which are not, we would not need review articles. A list of Q1 articles with short descriptions can be automatically generated from a citation database and the paper's abstracts. There would be no need to put it into a separate publication. Your primary job as author of a review article is that of curation. You should consider all (or at least as many as possible) papers on a topic, select the important ones and put them into a coherent thread based on their content alone.

It will likely be skewed towards the highly cited, because they are highly cited for a reason. But the point is, if a paper is good and advances the topic, I want a review article to tell me about it even if it only ever appeared as a preprint and hasn't really been cited by anyone. Equally, if it appeared in the best journal, is cited by hundreds, but is only tangentially related and doesn't really offer any new insight into the topic, I don't want to waste my time looking it up just because it was mentioned indiscriminately with the others.