Ruby Radio

Listen and fall in Love

What Is A Scoping Review?

What Is A Scoping Review
Scoping reviews are a ‘ preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research).’ Grant and Booth (2009).

What is the difference between a scoping review and a systematic 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.

What are the 5 stages of scoping review?

Abstract – This article presents a method of conducting a scoping review that synthesizes recommendations from previous literature while contributing additional customizations to enhance a team-based, mixed method approach. A form of knowledge synthesis, scoping reviews aim to describe the breadth of an existent knowledge base and inform future research, practice, and policy.

  1. Scoping review methodology has continued to evolve since the inception of the Arksey and O’Malley Framework in 2005.
  2. After examining recommendations from the body of literature on scoping review methodology and scoping reviews about scoping reviews, we found that teamwork and mixed method approaches were rarely addressed.

Following the Arksey and O’Malley Framework, we discuss current recommendations within the literature, rationale for our customizations to enhance the method, and present an application of these customizations as illustrated in our companion article, “Outcomes and outputs affiliated with children’s advocacy centers in the United States: A scoping review.”In sum, our enhancements to the Arksey and O’Malley Framework:

• Explicitly integrate qualitative and quantitative assessment of the literature following best practices in mixed methods research, and, • Integrate a team-based approach throughout all stages of the scoping review process.

What is a scoping review for research proposal?

A scoping review serves the purpose of identifying the existing literature on a specific research question. They can also clarify concepts in the literature and define gaps in knowledge.

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.

  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. Maximizing the sensitivity of the search generally results in a loss of specificity; many non-relevant citations may be captured. Thus, the aim of this step is to identify and remove from the review citations that are not relevant to the scoping review question. 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 ). 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. 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. 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” ( ). There are two published “scoping reviews of scoping reviews” which provide details on how this methodology has been applied in the literature ( 14, 16 ) and a discussion of the issue is available by Colquhoun et al. ( 17 ). It is likely that the approach to scoping reviews will be further defined and refined over time.
See also:  How To Write A Good Review For A Company Sample?

What is scoping vs narrative vs systematic review?

Scoping reviews serve to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of literature on a topic. Among other objectives, scoping reviews help determine whether a systematic review of the literature is warranted. A traditional literature review or narrative review examines and evaluates the scholarly literature on a topic.

How many references do you need for a scoping review?

My ‘rule of thumb’ has always been to use a maximum of three references to support a particular statement. The role of a literature review is to provide a targeted review of the literature. In my view, there are several reasons why it is wise not to use too many references: It really disturbs the flow of the paper.

How long should a scoping review take?

Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute’s Reviews Manual, Arksey & O’Malley (2005), and Cochrane Institute guidelines, there are 5 steps for conducting scoping reviews.

  1. Develop & register a protocol
    • State a clear research question
    • Define eligibility criteria
  2. Search the literature
    • Database searching (at least 3 databases, including one multi-disciplinary)
    • Supplementary searching
  3. Study Selection (2 or more reviewers)
    • Title and abstract screening
    • Full text screening
  4. Charting included sources (2 or more reviewers)
    • Chart characteristics of studies (form established a priori)
    • Code sheet
  5. Report results, implications, and recommendations

Tip: Be sure to be realistic about the amount of time it will take to conduct a thorough scoping review. While these types of reviews don’t include the same level of assessment or data analysis and synthesis as a systematic review, the broad nature of a scoping review typically results in far more identified studies to be screened.

See also:  What Is A Vine Customer Review?

How long does it take to write a scoping review?

Is a Systematic/Scoping Review Right for You?

Systematic Review Scoping Review
Average Time to Complete Review 6 months to 1.5 years 9 months to 1 year
Minimum Number of People Require to Complete Review 2 2

Do scoping reviews have research questions?

Debatably, one of the most important steps when conducting a scoping review is the development of the research question as, without a clear question, the review will lack a sense of direction and coherence. The research question should be directly related to the overall objectives and reasons for conducting the review.

Do scoping reviews have a hypothesis?

Background – Scoping reviews are used to map the concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available, Although scoping review methods have been proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and further advanced by Levac et al.

(2010) and others, there is a lack of consistency in terminology and methods reported, This is problematic because when different methods are applied to the same question, they may produce different results, undermining the utility and confidence in knowledge syntheses, As with other types of knowledge syntheses, it is critical to clarify scoping review methods in order to develop a standard that can be put into practice.

To address this, the Joanna Briggs Institute published methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews in 2015, As this is a very recent publication, the methods of published scoping reviews have not been compared for consistency with the methods guidance from this manual.

  1. Although related, scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews in a number of ways.
  2. Scoping reviews are used to present a broad overview of the evidence pertaining to a topic, irrespective of study quality, and are useful when examining areas that are emerging, to clarify key concepts and identify gaps,

For example, scoping reviews can be used to identify a topic area for a future systematic review. Systematic reviews, on the other hand, are used to address more specific questions, based on particular criteria of interest (i.e. population, intervention, outcome, etc.), defined a priori,

Scoping reviews can be seen as a hypothesis-generating exercise, while systematic reviews can be hypothesis – testing. An important component of developing a standard methodology for scoping reviews involves creating reporting guidelines. A reporting guideline is a tool (e.g., checklist) that is developed using explicit methods to guide authors in reporting research,

Use of reporting checklists increases transparency of methods, and allows readers to judge validity and reliability and use research appropriately, Currently, a checklist for reporting scoping reviews in the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) library does not exist for health research,

Given that scoping reviews are being conducted in increasing numbers and the lack of consistency in terminology and methods reported, a checklist for reporting is essential. Such a reporting checklist would develop a reporting standard that can be put into practice and will complement the methodological guidance on scoping reviews published by the Joanna Briggs Institute,

Our objective was to complete a scoping review within the healthcare context to synthesize: 1) articles that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; 2) guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and 3) studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews.

Is scoping review same as evidence map?

Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem , September 2022, Pages 175-182 Author links open overlay panel, Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence map methodologies are increasingly used by researchers. The objective of this article is to outline the main difference between these types of evidence synthesis to improve their conduct.

  1. This article summarizes the key issues facing reviewers, who conduct scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence maps and those who use the results and may engage in consultations during their development.
  2. Several differences exist between the methodologies, and these are in their protocol development, scope, inclusion criteria, data extraction, reporting, and use.

Mapping reviews are mainly driven by questions of effectiveness of a particular intervention and hence they use the Participant Intervention Comparator Outcome Study type format similar to systematic reviews of effectiveness. Scoping reviews mostly use the Participant, context, concept (PCC) format, where they map a concept of interest relevant to a particular population in a specific setting and context.

See also:  How To Prepare For Eagle Board Of Review?

Data extraction is limited by only coding of studies and intervention characteristics in evidence maps. The results of the mapping reviews can be used inform research priorities and research funding, whereas, scoping reviews result may be used to inform policy development by clarifying key concepts and methods, and further research.

We recommend authors who are planning to undertake scoping reviews confirm that their research question can be appropriately answered using a scoping review methodology, however, for broader research questions without the need for an in-depth analysis of the information, we recommend authors to consider mapping reviews.

Scoping reviews Evidence maps Methodology Quality Reporting mapping reviews

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. : Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem

What are the limitations of 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 advantages of 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.

Is a systematic scoping review qualitative or quantitative?

Presentation of Results – Finally, once the data is analyzed, the results of the reviews or studies are presented accordingly. For qualitative research, the results are explained as a textual summary that corroborates all the findings of the study. Quantitative studies express the results in the form of numbers and graphs. (Article continues below) Both qualitative and quantitative research approaches provide different kinds of knowledge. A systematic review can be qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of the two. The approach that is chosen is determined by the research question and the scope of the research.

When qualitative and quantitative techniques are used together in a given study, it is called a mixed method. In a mixed-method study, synthesis for the quantitative and qualitative studies should be done separately then the integration of the qualitative and quantitative results by investigating whether the qualitative results can help explain the quantitative results.

Most systematic reviews require a certain degree of statistical support using meta-analysis. By including meta-analysis, you can reduce the possibility of introducing bias in the systematic review. To know more about the, click this link. Resources & Industry insights Systematic Review Best Practices : Are Systematic Reviews Qualitative or Quantitative

Do you need two reviewers for a 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.

Does a scoping review need a protocol?

‘As with all well-conducted systematic reviews, an a priori protocol must be developed before undertaking the scoping review. A scoping review protocol is important, as it pre-defines the objectives, methods, and reporting of the review and allows for transparency of the process.

Do scoping reviews need ethical approval?

Ethics and dissemination: This scoping review does not require ethical approval.

What is the difference between a scoping review and systematic review quizlet?

Scoping reviews can be conducted more quickly than a systematic review. a policy or clinical area, or consumer needs. Scoping reviews may be conducted as a precursor to a systematic review or a larger study. Unlike narrative reviews, scoping reviews utilize systematic and transparent methods.

Are systematic reviews included in scoping reviews?

Can You Include a Systematic Review in a Scoping Review? – DistillerSR What Is A Scoping Review What Is A Scoping Review A systematic review is a rigorous research-intensive study of other studies. To find out if undertaking one is appropriate and necessary, researchers may opt to perform a scoping review, which acts as a preliminary literature review to assess the nature and extent of available research.

And other relevant sources, many researchers ask, “Can you include a systematic review in a scoping review?” Since systematic reviews are typically considered secondary studies, it’s not recommended to include them in a scoping review. However, you may include the studies previous systematic reviews considered.

It’s also helpful to note existing systematic reviews about a topic to ensure that the study isn’t being duplicated. It may even inform your decision-making process about the feasibility of a study you may plan to do on a similar topic in the future.

What are the four major types of reviews?

Over the years, numerous types of literature reviews have emerged, but the four main types are traditional or narrative, systematic, meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.