Look at your article. Is there a Methods section?
Yes -- It's probably original research.
No -- Look for another article.
Look again. Is it described as, or does it look like a review of original research articles?
Yes -- It's a review.
No -- It's original research.
More detail, if you need it
Look for a Methods or Methodology section. If you see that, the article is probably original research. (Sometimes you'll read or hear the term "primary.")
But wait! Reviews synthesize original research. Reviews may have a Methods or Methodology section also. If they are systematic reviews or meta-analyses (types of reviews) they'd certainly better have a Methods or Methodology section. (Reviews are "secondary.")
Distinguishing between original and review. Original research will describe (in the Methods section) analyzing people or animals or samples of something. On the other hand, reviews will analyze original research articles.
Example original. Note the 158 patients and 20 healthy controls. Not a review.
Example review. Note that the Methods section describes finding and analyzing 17 studies. Also notice label "Review," and as often happens the terms "systematic review and meta-analysis" in the article title. Also notice the gray label "Meta-Analysis" on PubMed record.
Careful! The introductory paragraphs of original research articles will very briefly review previous research too. Look at the a Methods or Methodology section instead.
Reviews will usually be labelled somewhere. Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses will say that in the article title. PubMed, and many other search interfaces, will have labels that say "Review."