Ruby Radio

Listen and fall in Love

How To Write A Scoping Review?

How To Write A Scoping Review
How to perform a scoping study in 5 easy steps – In the sections below, I intend to summarize the guidelines provided by the Joana Briggs Institute for conducting a scoping review. Step 1 – Define the topic that you will be reviewing; its objectives and any potential sub-questions.

  • Step 3 – Apply PCC framework
  • Step 4 – Perform systematic literature searches
  • Step 5 – Screen the obtained results and only include studies that meet your eligibility criteria
  • Step 6 – Extract and chart the data you extracted from the collected studies
  • Step 7 – Write a summary of the evidence to answer your research question(s).

The list above summarizes the process behind performing a scoping review. Below, we elaborate further, based on recommendations from the Joana Briggs Institute. How To Write A Scoping Review Source: Osman et al. (2018). eConsult scoping review framework based on the guidance on reporting published by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Creative Commons license BY-NC 4.0 Title of the review protocol The suggested length according to JBI of the length for the introduction section of the scoping review protocol is roughly 1,000 words.

The protocol (and the review itself) should have an informative title that helps shed light on the topic of the scoping review. To this end, the phrase – “: a scoping review” should be attached to the title. Such an attachment will enable readers to easily have an idea of what the document is about. Be sure to include the word “protocol” if that is what the document is about.

For example, “Assessing the impact of treating anxiety using nigella sativa: a scoping review protocol.” You should also avoid constructing titles in question format. The Joana Briggs Institute (JBI) recommends a “PCC” mnemonic to help in generating a clear and meaningful title for a scoping review.

  • the population aspect focuses on “important characteristics of participants, including age and other qualifying criteria.”
  • concept may include details related to elements that would appear in a standard systematic review. Among such details are “interventions” and/or “phenomena of interest” and/or “outcomes.”
  • context can be made up of cultural factors like geographic location and/or particular gender or racial-based interests. In some reviews, context can also include information about the particular setting.

Adopting the PCC mnemonic also enables the reviewers to craft a title that conveys important details to readers, e.g., the focus and scope of the review as well as how the reviews can be applied to their needs. In a nutshell, the PCC concept is necessary to establish concord between the title, review question(s), and inclusion criteria.

  1. Scoping review question(s) Just like the title, the scoping review question(s), should also reflect the PCC elements.
  2. The question guides and directs the reviewers to develop inclusion criteria that are suitable for the scoping review.
  3. Moreover, a clearly expressed question helps in constructing the protocol, makes for an optimal literature search, and offers a clarified structure for developing the scoping review.

A Scoping review will usually come with only one primary question. For example, Are there any side effects in the various treatments for depression? However, sub-questions may be necessary, especially if the primary question neither sufficiently reflects the PCC nor the review’s objective(s).

  • In such a scenario, sub-questions can help shed more light on the specific characteristics of a population, concept, or context.
  • Sub-questions can also help to highlight the most likely way to map evidence with respect to the PCC elements.
  • Using context, for example, the above primary question which deals with just the side effects of depression treatments can be expanded to: Are there any geographical contexts that depression treatments have been associated with side effects? Introduction The introduction should be broad enough to capture all the key elements of the topic being reviewed.

It should include the reason for carrying out the scoping review (including the rationale behind each of the elements as well as the information the review intends to disseminate in addition to the objective(s) of the review. Be sure to explain any definitions that are relevant to the topic under review.

  • You should also ensure that the introductory information must be presented in a way that sufficiently sheds light on the inclusion criteria.
  • For instance, information about the existence or otherwise of scoping reviews, systematic reviews, research syntheses, and/or primary research papers on the topic.

This will help reinforce your reason or rationale for undertaking the scoping review. The concluding phase of the introduction should indicate that the reviewer has already conducted a preparatory search for available scoping reviews (and maybe systematic reviews as well) on the topic.

  • The dates of such searches, the databases, and journals searched and search platforms used must also be included.
  • Some examples in this regard include the JBI Evidence Synthesis, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
  • If scoping and/or systematic reviews about the topic are available, the reviewers then have to clearly justify how their proposed review will differ from those they have identified.

This will enable readers to easily determine any new insight or knowledge which the forthcoming review espouses when compared to existing evidence syntheses. Finally, the concluding phase of the introduction should explain how the review’s objective(s) align with the main elements of the inclusion criteria, for example, the PCC.

  1. Inclusion criteria The inclusion criteria capture the reviewers’ reasons for selecting which sources that will be part of their scoping review (or otherwise).
  2. These reasons should be clearly explained in a way that enables readers to easily comprehend the reviewers’ ideas.
  3. As stated earlier, there must be concord or synergy between the title, question(s), and inclusion criteria.

Search strategy Even with time and resource constraints, the search strategy for a scoping review should try to be as broad-based as possible. This will help the reviewers to fish out both published and unpublished primary sources of evidence and reviews.

  1. It is recommended that the search strategy follows the three steps enumerated below.
  2. 1) Conducting a preliminary search on not less than a couple of web-based databases determined to be relevant to the topic.
  3. 2) A second search that includes all identified keywords and index terms to be conducted on all the selected databases.
  4. 3) Identified reports and articles should be searched.

The reviewer has to specify both the languages he or she will consider for inclusion and the timeframe. They should also provide clear reasons for such specifications. To ensure an optimal search strategy, several search iterations may be necessary especially if the evidence base becomes clearer to reviewers thus leading to the knowledge of additional keywords, sources, and search terms.

  1. Decide on research question(s) in your specific subject area
  2. Find relevant databases you will search
  3. Create a list of relevant keywords and phrases for your literature search
  4. Begin the literature search while taking notes from each database to keep track of your queries
  5. Begin the scoping review and compile your results into an article
  6. If needed, revise your original research question(s)

Source of evidence selection A scoping review protocol should include a description of all the stages of the source selection process based on title and abstract examination as well as on full-text examination. It should be premised on the inclusion criteria and also explain the mechanisms for resolving disagreements among reviewers.

  1. The source selection (both the title and abstract examination and the full-text screening) should be conducted by a couple of reviewers or more.
  2. Disagreements arising between the reviewers can be resolved either by consensus or by a third reviewer.
  3. The process should be explained through a narrative description which has to include a flowchart of the review process (from the PRISMA-ScR statement).

The chart shows the flow from the search through source selection, duplicates, full-text retrieval, and all inclusions from the third search, data extraction, and presentation of the evidence. Information on the retrieved full-text articles should be provided.

  1. Separate appendices providing information on included sources should also be provided.
  2. The appendices should briefly disclose all excluded sources as well as the reasons for their exclusion.
  3. The reviewers should mention the software used to manage the results of the search.
  4. Examples include Covidence, JBI SUMARI, etc.

Before venturing into source selection across a team, it may be necessary to pilot test the source selectors to enable the team to refine their source selection tool (assuming they are using such a tool). Data extraction The data extraction process is often referred to as “data charting” in scoping reviews.

  • Author(s)
  • Publication year
  • Origin/country of origin (where the source was published or conducted)
  • Aims or purposes
  • Population and sample size within the source of evidence (if applicable)
  • Methodology / methods
  • Intervention type, comparator, and information on these (e.g. duration of the intervention) (if applicable). Duration of the intervention (if applicable)
  • Outcomes and information on these (e.g. how it was measured, if applicable)
  • Important findings relating to the scoping review question(s)

These details can be refined in the review stage albeit this will necessitate an updating of the charting table. Careful record-keeping is necessary on the part of the reviewers since it will ensure ease of reference and tracking as well as help them to identify and chart every source as well as any other additional unanticipated data.

  • This implies that charting the results can be a repetitive process of continuous updating of data.
  • In summary, it is very important that the reviewers exhibit transparency and clarity in their data extraction methods.
  • Like in source of evidence selection, pilot testing is also necessary.
  • Analysis of the evidence Many scoping reviews are usually analyzed through simple counting of concepts, populations, characteristics and so forth.

However, other reviews may need a more complex analyses, e.g., descriptive qualitative content analysis which includes basic coding of data, For quantitative data, more sophisticated techniques can be utilized instead of simple frequency counts to determine the occurrence of concepts, characteristics, populations, etc.

  • However, such in-depth analyses are not common in scoping reviews.
  • Areas like meta-analysis and interpretive qualitative analysis have very small probabilities of being used in scoping reviews.
  • The nature of data analysis in scoping reviews is largely determined by the purpose of the review and the reviewers’ evaluations.

The most vital concern is the level of transparency of the analytical method used and the ability of the reviewers to rationalize their approach in addition to a priori planning of the review. Presentation of the results It is important provide a plan for the presentation of results (one that includes the type of charts, tables and/or figures that will be used) during protocol development.

  • The essence of early planning is to have some knowledge of the kinds of data that might emerge and the best way to present such data with respect to both the objective(s) and research question(s) of the scoping review.
  • This knowledge can be modified during the review process when the reviewers must have become more aware of all data from the included sources.
See also:  How To Write A Google Review Without A Google Account?

It is possible to present the results of a scoping review in a descriptive format and/or as a map of the data from the included sources, e.g., tables and other diagrams. The PCC concept can be an essential guide on how to map data efficiently. More info For more information regarding scoping reviews, please refer to Arksey, H.

and O’Malley paper or JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, this article is based primarily on the latter source. ✅ Also check out This post was produced as part of a research guide series by which is a free web-based app that helps you to write and organize your academic writing online. to find out more.

References Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S, Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems.2008;6(1):1. Arksey H, O’Malley L.

  • Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.
  • Int J Soc Res Methodol.2005;8(1):19–32.
  • Arksey, H.
  • And O’Malley paper (2015).
  • Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.
  • International journal of social research methodology, 8 (1), pp.19-32.
  • Colquhoun, H.L., Levac, D., O’Brien, K.K., Straus, S., Tricco, A.C., Perrier, L., Kastner, M.

and Moher, D., 2014. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 67 (12), pp.1291-1294. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Source: Munn, Z., Peters, M.D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A.

And Aromataris, E., 2018. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, 18 (1), pp.1-7. Osman, M.A., Schick-Makaroff, K., Thompson, S., Featherstone, R., Bialy, L., Kurzawa, J., Okpechi, I.G., Habib, S., Shojai, S., Jindal, K.

and Klarenbach, S., 2018. Barriers and facilitators for implementation of electronic consultations (eConsult) to enhance specialist access to care: a scoping review protocol. BMJ open, 8 (9), p.e022733. : How to write a scoping review – Avidnote

Can one person do a scoping review?

Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review Both authors are with McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Susanne Mak, MSc, is an Assistant Professor, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, and an Associate Member, Institute of Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Find articles by Both authors are with McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Aliki Thomas, PhD, is an Associate Professor, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, and an Associate Member, Institute of Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Find articles by

Both authors are with McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Susanne Mak, MSc, is an Assistant Professor, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, and an Associate Member, Institute of Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Aliki Thomas, PhD, is an Associate Professor, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, and an Associate Member, Institute of Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Corresponding author.

Corresponding author: Susanne Mak, MSc, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, A scoping review is a type of knowledge synthesis that uses a systematic and iterative approach to identify and synthesize an existing or emerging body of literature on a given topic.

While there are several reasons for conducting a scoping review, the main reasons are to map the extent, range, and nature of the literature, as well as to determine possible gaps in the literature on a topic. – Scoping reviews are not limited to peer-reviewed literature., Before conducting the review, it is important to consider the composition of the research team: scoping reviews are not conducted by a single individual.

The team should include someone with content expertise and an individual with experience conducting scoping reviews.,, Adding a librarian who can assist with building the search strategy is also extremely helpful., Thoughtful planning of the team membership will result in the right knowledge, skills, and expertise to successfully complete the review and ensure that the findings make a notable contribution to the field.

  • An overview of the steps involved in conducting scoping reviews is provided below.
  • Creating the research question is a vital first step.
  • A question that is too broad increases the number of papers for consideration, which may affect the feasibility of the review.
  • A question that is too narrow may compromise the breadth and depth of the review.

Therefore, a preliminary search of the literature may be helpful in determining: (1) the breadth of your question; (2) whether a scoping review on the topic has already been conducted; and (3) if there is sufficient literature to warrant a scoping review.

  • Consulting with a librarian can help in deciding if a scoping review is the appropriate review method.
  • In particular, a librarian may confirm that there is insufficient literature or that there is too much, which will necessitate a more targeted research question.
  • Early consultation with a librarian should occur to build the search strategy—keywords, Medical Subject Headings, databases—and further refine the strategy based on the papers found.

For example, you may find too many irrelevant papers. In this case you may need to review your search strategy to identify the terms which introduce too much “noise.” You will also need to define the inclusion and exclusion criteria., – Discussions with your team are important to ensure diverse perspectives and that the inclusion criteria are aligned with the research question.

, Tools such as Covidence and Rayyan can be helpful in organizing papers and making the screening process more efficient (). Once you have collected the citations from the search, you can import these from reference management software (eg, EndNote) into Rayyan. After selecting papers for inclusion, the citations of the included papers can be exported to reference management software for the next stage of the review.

Other helpful features of management software can include the identification of duplicates, proportion of an abstract that resembles another, and documentation of reasons for inclusion or exclusion. Both Covidence and Rayyan allow for blinding the results of team members’ reviews to each other.

Having additional reviewers will accelerate the pace of the review but will require calibration between reviewers.,, A calibration exercise consists of selecting 5% to 10% of the papers for independent screening by each reviewer. If a high level of agreement among reviewers is not achieved (eg, lower than 90%),, the reviewers should discuss their points of disagreement and review (and possibly revise) the inclusion criteria.

Another 10% of the papers are then selected for a second calibration exercise to test the modified inclusion criteria. If having 2 reviewers for each paper is not feasible, one reviewer can conduct an independent review, with a second reviewer verifying a portion of the papers, with the goal of 90% or better agreement.

  1. The actual screening of papers should consist of reading not only the title of the paper, but the abstract as well.
  2. If an abstract is not available, a full-text review of the paper is required.
  3. Screening papers by title alone is insufficient, as the contents of a paper are not always well reflected in the title.

The team develops the data extraction form collaboratively. Although the extraction categories vary depending on the research question and review purpose, common categories are: author, year, geographical location, study population, main results, study limitations, and future directions.

  1. More specific categories will be needed to capture the data for a given research question.
  2. The extraction form will need to be pilot tested for further refinements and undergo a calibration exercise as well.
  3. This entails a dyad of reviewers independently extracting data from a small number of papers (eg, 5-10), and meeting afterward to discuss any discrepancies, with further refinement of the form if a high level of agreement between reviewers is not obtained.

Once the data have been extracted from all papers, numerical and thematic analyses are conducted. The findings from the numerical analysis can be presented in a table or chart to showcase the most salient aspects of the review. Readers should be able to see alignment of findings with objectives for conducting the review.

  1. Thematic analysis consists of examining excerpts of text and asking how this text relates to the research question, as well as creating a code (label) that best reflects that text.
  2. A list of tentative codes (a codebook) is created and modified iteratively as the team engages in data analysis.
  3. Once codes are developed, a review of the codes and how they relate to each other can help to identify patterns among them, which leads to the creation of categories (collections of similar data in one place) and themes (patterns across the dataset).

Reflexivity is essential throughout the review process but especially during thematic analysis, with use of memos, to capture the thoughts that arise from examining and interpreting the data. Once the codes are generated, the research team will further refine them through discussion.

The team should discuss not only the clarity of the operational definitions of the codes, but also how the codes are named and how they may relate to each other. As the codes are grouped together, the team will develop themes. Reasons for stakeholder consultation may be to obtain input on the research question and sources of information, and to provide insights on a topic.

Other purposes may include obtaining feedback to help shed light on the review findings and pinpoint gaps not explored in the literature. While a stakeholder consultation has been named as the final step of a review, it can be incorporated throughout the review stages and can occur through focus groups, individual interviews, or surveys.

, A scoping review is useful to map the literature on evolving or emerging topics and to identify gaps. It may be a step before undertaking research or conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Before conducting a scoping review, it is important to consider how the research team will implement each step and who will be involved at each stage, while being mindful that the methodological approach provides teams with the opportunity to move back to earlier stages as the review evolves.1.

Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, Young ME. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: demystifying scoping reviews. Acad Med,2017; 92 (2):161–166. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452.2. Maggio LA, Larsen K, Thomas A, Costello JA, Artino AR., Jr Scoping reviews in medical education: a scoping review.

See also:  What Is A Good Score On Archer Review?

Med Educ,2020; 55 (6):689–700. doi: 10.1111/medu.14431.3. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth,2020; 18 (10):2119–2126. doi: 10.11124/jbies-20-00167.4. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.

Int J Soc Res Methodol,2005; 8 (1):19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.5. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci,2010; 5 :69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.6. Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Varpio L, Durning SJ, Young ME.

  1. Scoping reviews in health professions education: challenges, considerations and lessons learned about epistemology and methodology.
  2. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract,2020; 25 (4):989–1002.
  3. Doi: 10.1007/s10459-019-09932-2.7.
  4. Thomas A, Law M.
  5. Research utilization and evidence-based practice in occupational therapy: a scoping study.

Am J Occup Ther,2013; 67 (4):e55–e65. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2013.006395.8. Glover Takahashi S, Herold J, Nayer M, Bance S. The epidemiology of competence: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open,2014; 4 (12):e006129. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006129.9. Braun V, Clarke V.

What is the difference between systematic review and scoping review?

A scoping review seeks to present an overview of a potentially large and diverse body of literature pertaining to a broad topic. A systematic review attempts to collate empirical evidence from a relatively smaller number of studies pertaining to a focused research question.

Do you need two reviewers for scoping review?

Abstract – Background: Although dual independent review of search results by two reviewers is generally recommended for systematic reviews, there are not consistent recommendations regarding the timing of the use of the second reviewer. This study compared the use of a complete dual review approach, with two reviewers in both the title/abstract screening stage and the full-text screening stage, as compared with a limited dual review approach, with two reviewers only in the full-text stage.

  • Methods: This study was performed within the context of a large systematic review.
  • Two reviewers performed a complete dual review of 15 000 search results and a limited dual review of 15 000 search results.
  • The number of relevant studies mistakenly excluded by highly experienced reviewers in the complete dual review was compared with the number mistakenly excluded during the full-text stage of the limited dual review.

Results: In the complete dual review approach, an additional 6.6% to 9.1% of eligible studies were identified during the title/abstract stage by using two reviewers, and an additional 6.6% to 11.9% of eligible studies were identified during the full-text stage by using two reviewers.

In the limited dual review approach, an additional 4.4% to 5.3% of eligible studies were identified with the use of two reviewers. Conclusions: Using a second reviewer throughout the entire study screening process can increase the number of relevant studies identified for use in a systematic review. Systematic review performers should consider using a complete dual review process to ensure all relevant studies are included in their review.

Keywords: eligibility screening; review methods; search strategy; study selection. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What makes a good scoping review question?

Questions appropriate for Scoping Review methodology include: What has been done? What populations have been included? What progress has been made in the research?

Is a scoping review a meta analysis?

Scoping Reviews – Scoping reviews are used to describe the available literature on a topic (often referred to as charting or mapping). The specific objectives of a scoping review might be to describe the volume and nature of the existing literature in a topic area, to determine the feasibility of conducting a systematic review for a specific review question within a topic area, or to identify gaps in the body of literature on a topic ( 7, 8 ).

The approach was first described by Arksey and O’Malley ( 7 ) and further advanced by Levac et al. ( 8 ) and Peters et al. ( 9 ). The methodology of scoping reviews follows a series of steps as follows ( 7 ): 1. Identifying the question, 2. Identifying the studies, 3. Selecting studies relevant to the review question from the results of the search, 4.

Charting the data, 5. Collating, summarizing, and reporting the findings and 6. An optional consultation with relevant stakeholders. Scoping reviews start with an a priori protocol which describes the proposed methodology for each step. A protocol allows for transparency as to which decisions were made a priori or during the process of the review itself.

  • Further details on each step of a scoping review are as follows: 1) Identifying the question The research question for a scoping review is often broad in nature, and is based on the specific objectives of the review.
  • At a minimum, the review question defines the content area and scope of the review.
  • Generally, a scoping review question will define one or two aspects that delineate the scope of the review.

Perhaps the easiest approach to understand this is to compare the approach to identifying the review question to the type of question that would be appropriate for a systematic review. Systematic reviews usually are written very precisely to reflect specific key elements of a review question; for intervention questions, these are the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (see systematic review question types, below, for further detail on key elements).

Because a scoping review is describing the literature, rather extracting the study result, a scoping review about an intervention might seek to map this body of literature by defining only the population and the outcome of interest in the scoping review question. For example, while a systematic review, might ask “What the effect of BRD vaccination compared to no vaccination on the incidence of respiratory disease in feedlot cattle,” a scoping review might ask, “What interventions have been investigated for the reduction of respiratory disease in feedlot cattle?” In this example, the scoping review has defined the population and outcome, and then will map the literature about the interventions and comparators.

Scoping reviews in veterinary medicine have involved a range of species and topic areas, including scoping reviews of the indicators and methods of measurement that have been used to evaluate the impact of population management interventions for dogs ( 10 ), non-antibiotic interventions in cattle to mitigate antibiotic resistance of enteric pathogens ( 11 ), and indications for acupuncture in companion animals ( 12 ).2) Identifying the studies The process of searching the literature for relevant studies is the same for scoping and systematic reviews.

  • The intention for a scoping review is to describe the totality of literature on a subject.
  • Thus, the aim is to maximize the sensitivity of the search for identifying relevant literature.
  • Search terms are created to address the key components of the research question, such as the population of interest and the topics area.

These search terms are then combined using Boolean operators and applied to multiple electronic databases as well as other sources such as websites or theses portals (the “gray literature”). The specifics of creating and applying search strategies are consistent with those used in systematic reviews, and so this topic will be more completely covered in later sections of this article.3) Selecting relevant studies The process of selecting relevant studies is the same for scoping and systematic reviews.

  1. Maximizing the sensitivity of the search generally results in a loss of specificity; many non-relevant citations may be captured.
  2. Thus, the aim of this step is to identify and remove from the review citations that are not relevant to the scoping review question.
  3. This is done by creating a small number (generally one to three) of “screening questions” that can be applied quickly to the titles and abstracts of each citation to allow the identification of citations that are not relevant.

The questions often pertain to the population and outcome or topic area of interest. For instance, if the aim of the scoping review is to describe the literature on interventions to prevent respiratory vaccines in swine, the questions might ask whether the citation describes swine as the population of interest, and whether the citation describes the outcome of interest i.e., interventions to prevent respiratory disease.

After screening titles and abstracts, full texts are acquired for potentially relevant citations and the screening questions are applied again to the full articles. To reduce the potential for selection bias in the identification of relevant literature, it is standard practice for relevance screening to be undertaken in duplicate by two reviewers working independently, with any disagreements resolved by consensus.

A recent study comparing duplicate screening to limited dual review (only some of the citations screened by two reviewers) reported that up to 9.1% (title and abstract screening) and up to 11.9% (full text screening) of relevant articles were inadvertently excluded when two reviewers were not used ( 13 ).

  1. However, when the number of citations identified by the search is very large, screening can be undertaken by a single reviewer, with a second reviewer evaluating the studies which were identified as not relevant by the first reviewer.
  2. Currently, screening for relevant studies based on the title and abstract is usually conducted by human resources, however machine learning approaches are available to assist in this process, and it is envisioned this process will be fully automated soon.4) Charting the data This is a step where there are substantial differences between a scoping review and a systematic review.

The differences relate to the level of detail extracted and the focus; because they are descriptive, scoping reviews usually do not extract the results of a study and rarely assess the risk of bias in a study ( 14 ). For a scoping review, describing the data involves extracting relevant information from each of the articles that have been identified as relevant to the review.

The actual information that is collected will depend on the intent of the review as described in the protocol, but often include characteristics of the study (such as location and year), more detailed description of the population (species, stage of production for livestock animals), and the outcomes (potentially including conceptual outcomes, operational outcomes, and outcome measurements such as incidence, prevalence, relative risk or others).

Data also may be collected on the aim of each study (e.g., laboratory testing, diagnostic test development, hypothesis testing) and the study design. For example, for a scoping review to address the review question “What interventions have been investigated for the prevention of respiratory disease in swine?”, information could be extracted about the population (e.g., stage of production) and possibly further details on the outcome (e.g., identification of specific respiratory pathogens via nasal swaps vs.

  • Categorization of lung lesions at slaughter as different operational outcomes for the conceptual outcome of “respiratory disease”), although the broad descriptions of the population and outcomes of interest were already defined in the review question.
  • It is likely that more detail would be extracted related to the interventions and comparators used, because the intent of the review was to explore that aspect of the topic.
See also:  How To Delete Glassdoor Review?

Data extraction might also include information on the type of study design, if the objective was to identify possible interventions for which there was sufficient data to conduct a systematic review. Data extraction is usually conducted in duplicate by two independent reviewers using a standardized form developed prior to starting the study, although this form may evolve over the conduct of a scoping review.

Disagreements between reviewers are resolved by consensus or with input from a third reviewer.5) Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results This step also is different from a systematic review, and does not include a meta-analysis. In this step, for a scoping review, the information extracted from each relevant article is collated and presented to the reader.

This can be done using tables, figures, and text. The presentation of the information should match the objectives of the scoping study, but may include a description of the type of literature available, changes in the volume or type of literature on the topic over time, or summaries of interventions and outcomes by study design to identify areas where there may be a sufficient body of literature to conduct a systematic review.

The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) provides guidelines for appropriate reporting of scoping studies ( 15 ).6) Stakeholder consultation The sixth step, which is optional, is to include stakeholder consultation. This may occur at multiple stages of the scoping review (e.g., question formulation, identification of literature, creation of data extraction tools, interpretation of results).

As an example, if the scoping review question involved a consideration of management practices at dry-off in cattle, the researchers may consider including a group of dairy veterinarians or producers when discussing the scope of the review, the search terms, and the search strategy.

This could help to ensure that all relevant practices are included and that the search terms include both common and potentially less common synonyms for the various management options. Although this brief summary provides an overview of the steps as they are generally undertaken for scoping reviews, there is a lack of consistency in the terminology and the specific approaches used in studies referred to in the literature as “scoping studies”.

Colloquially, the process of describing the literature is often called mapping or charting the literature. However, those terms are not well-defined. For example, the American Speech-language-hearing Association seems to equate the term “Evidence Map” with a systematic review ( ), while the Campbell Collaboration seems to equate the term more closely with a scoping review, describing evidence maps as a “systematic and visual presentations of the availability of rigorous evidence for a particular policy domain” ( ).

How many pages should a scoping review be?

In a thesis or dissertation, the review is usually a full chapter ( at least 20 pages ), but for an assignment it may only be a few pages.

What are the negatives of a scoping review?

One major disadvantage to the scoping review is that due to the broad nature of the review question, the findings may be similarly broad, requiring additional steps on the part of the authors to synthesize and draw useful conclusions from them.

What are the stages of scoping review?

Summary – Scoping studies present an increasingly popular option for synthesizing health evidence. Brien et al. argue that guidelines are required to facilitate scoping review reporting and transparency. In this paper, we build on the existing methodological framework for scoping studies outlined by Arksey and O’Malley and provide recommendations to clarify and enhance each stage, which may increase the consistency with which researchers undertake and report scoping studies.

Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question; balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process; using an iterative team approach to selecting studies and extracting data; incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis; identifying the implications of the study findings for policy, practice, or research; and adopting consultation as a required component of scoping study methodology.

Ongoing considerations include: establishing a common accepted definition and purpose(s) of scoping studies; defining methodological rigor for the assessment of scoping study quality; debating the need for quality assessment of included studies; and formalizing knowledge translation as a required element of scoping methodology.

What level of research is a scoping review?

What level of evidence is a scoping review? – Systematic reviews have the highest level of evidence of all research types. Scoping reviews do not contain the level of detail of systematic reviews. They may have a higher risk of bias due to higher heterogeneity.

What should be included in a scoping review introduction?

Structure the story – The Problem, Gap and Hook are important, but they are only three of the sentences in your Introduction. What goes in the other sentences, and how should you organize them? According to scoping review guidelines, the introductory literature review of your paper must do three things: 1) provide relevant details about the “population or participants, concepts, and context” (PCC); 2) establish that there is sufficient literature to warrant a review; and 3) acknowledge any pre-existing reviews and distinguish them from yours. How To Write A Scoping Review An effective scoping review Introduction, from Young et al.

What journals publish scoping reviews?

Before embarking on a scoping review, 1) Make sure that a recent scoping or systematic review on the same topic has not already been published, and 2) Check for protocols that would indicate similar work is in progress. Protocols can be registered and/or published.

To check for published reviews, search journal databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and even Google Scholar (to catch any journal content that is not covered in bibliographic databases). You can also check Epistemonikos (an open source database of health evidence), Campbell Collaboration (systematic reviews on effectiveness of social interventions), FigShare, OSF (research repositories) or MedRXiv (a preprint server).

Journals that publish scoping review protocols include BMJ Open and Systematic Reviews, among others. Registries include PROSPERO and the JBI Review Registry, You should consider registering and/or publishing your own Scoping Review Protocol once you’ve established your Plan.

What are the stages of scoping review?

Summary – Scoping studies present an increasingly popular option for synthesizing health evidence. Brien et al. argue that guidelines are required to facilitate scoping review reporting and transparency. In this paper, we build on the existing methodological framework for scoping studies outlined by Arksey and O’Malley and provide recommendations to clarify and enhance each stage, which may increase the consistency with which researchers undertake and report scoping studies.

Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question; balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process; using an iterative team approach to selecting studies and extracting data; incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis; identifying the implications of the study findings for policy, practice, or research; and adopting consultation as a required component of scoping study methodology.

Ongoing considerations include: establishing a common accepted definition and purpose(s) of scoping studies; defining methodological rigor for the assessment of scoping study quality; debating the need for quality assessment of included studies; and formalizing knowledge translation as a required element of scoping methodology.

What are the steps of scoping process?

The Scoping Phase duration depends on the project complexity and involves identifying stakeholders, establishing the project team, confirming the project purpose and need, initiating the environmental review process, determining the level of environmental documentation and required permits, performing survey,

What are the parts of scoping review?

Eligibility criteria – We included the following types of papers: 1) all scoping reviews that utilized a scoping review approach with a description of the literature synthesis method used; 2) short reports describing development, dissemination, use or comparison of scoping review methods versus other knowledge synthesis methods; 3) guidelines for reporting scoping reviews (which may include a checklist, flow diagram or text to guide authors in scoping review reporting, developed using explicit methods); and, 4) studies assessing the quality of reporting and potential sources of bias in scoping reviews.

The definition of a scoping review used was as follows: scoping studies “aim to map rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available, and can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, especially where an area is complex or has not been reviewed comprehensively before”,

We used the Levac et al. (2010) modifications to the original framework of a scoping review to guide this research. This framework includes the following steps: 1) Identify the research question by clarifying and linking the purpose and research question, 2) identify relevant studies by balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness, 3) select studies using an iterative team approach to study selection and data extraction, 4) chart the data incorporating numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, 5) collate, summarize and report the results, including the implications for policy, practice or research, and 6) consultation exercise, which is an optional step and can be adopted as a required component of a scoping review.

All study designs were eligible, including those that utilized qualitative or quantitative methods, methodology or guideline reports. We focused our inclusion criteria to capture scoping review methods within the domain of health, which was defined using the World Health Organization (WHO) definition as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being’,

As this definition encompassed the social determinants of health, we included scoping reviews conducted within psychology, education and sociology. We also included the philosophy discipline because some knowledge synthesis methods (such as realist reviews) are rooted in philosophy.

What are the sections of a scoping review?

Review sections Scientific articles often follow the IMRaD format: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. You will also need a title and an abstract to summarize your research.