Introduction
A scoping review is a powerful methodology in the field of evidence synthesis, offering researchers a structured approach to mapping the available literature on a given topic. As an increasingly popular review type, scoping reviews have gained significant traction in recent years, prompting many to explore when and how to conduct a scoping review.
This comprehensive guide will delve into the intricacies of scoping reviews, scoping studies, comparing them to systematic reviews and traditional literature reviews, and providing insights into their purpose, methodology, and limitations.
Systematic/Scoping Review Help
Seeking dissertation research excellence? Look no further than Best Dissertation Writers. We offer personalized guidance, in-depth research, and impeccable writing to help you achieve your academic goals. Elevate your dissertation – get in touch now for professional, reliable assistance.
When choosing between a systematic review or scoping review, researchers must consider the type of review that best suits their research question. A scoping review is a type of evidence synthesis that differs from a standard systematic review in several ways. The scoping review process is designed to map the available research evidence and identify knowledge gaps, whereas a systematic review aims to answer specific questions.
Guidance for authors when choosing a review type often emphasizes that scoping reviews are similar to systematic reviews in their methodological approach, but they have a broader focus. The reasons for conducting a scoping review may include identifying ongoing research or providing a framework for future studies.
A scoping review protocol outlines the stages of the review process, including the research question, methodology, and approach to evidence synthesis. Scoping reviews may be conducted using a checklist and explanation to ensure thoroughness. The review may also include a systematic review of qualitative evidence within its broader scope.
Understanding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types is crucial for researchers. Scoping review guidance helps authors navigate the process, ensuring that the review answers the intended questions and contributes valuable insights to the field.
What is a scoping review?
A scoping review is a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis that aims to map the key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research related to a defined area or field. Unlike a systematic review, which typically focuses on a precise research question, a scoping review tends to address broader topics and may include a wider range of study designs and methodologies to develop comprehensive scoping studies.
The systematic scoping review method process involves systematically searching, selecting, and synthesizing existing knowledge to create a comprehensive overview of the available research on a particular topic. This review type is particularly useful when the body of literature is large, diverse, or complex, making it challenging to conduct a more precise systematic review.
Scoping reviews are often conducted to inform future research, identify research gaps, and clarify key concepts or definitions within a field. They can also help researchers determine whether a full systematic review is feasible or necessary. To conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, researchers must first perform background research of the problem to make a decision that this is the best type of review to adopt. This definition of scoping reviews shows that it has great characteristics similar to systematic reviews
The purpose of a scoping review
The purpose of a scoping review is multifaceted, addressing several key objectives in the research process, and you need to understand them in order to conduct scoping reviews perfectly.
- Mapping the available evidence: Scoping reviews aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on a topic, helping researchers understand the extent, range, and nature of research activity.
- Identifying research gaps: By systematically examining the body of literature, scoping reviews can highlight areas where research is lacking or where further investigation is needed.
- Clarifying key concepts: Scoping reviews can help define and clarify important concepts, theories, or definitions within a field of study.
- Informing research agendas: The findings of a scoping review can guide the development of future research questions and inform the commissioning of research.
- Determining the feasibility of a systematic review: Scoping reviews can help researchers decide whether a full systematic review is warranted or feasible based on the available evidence.
- Summarizing research findings: While not as detailed as systematic reviews, scoping reviews can provide a valuable summary of research findings across a broad topic area.
A 5-Step Guide for Conducting a Scoping Review: Demystifying the Process
Scoping reviews have become an increasingly popular approach to evidence synthesis in recent years. Unlike traditional systematic reviews, scoping reviews offer a more flexible methodology for mapping the available research on a topic. This guide will walk you through the essential steps of conducting a scoping review, providing clarity on the scoping review process and highlighting key differences from other review types. By following these steps effectively, you will be able to develop a scoping review of scoping reviews in that specific field.
Step 1: Formulating the Research Question and Developing the Protocol
The first step in conducting a scoping review is to formulate a clear research question. Unlike the narrow focus of a systematic review, a scoping review question is typically broader in nature. This allows for a more comprehensive exploration of the available literature on a topic.
Once you have your research question, it’s time to develop a scoping review protocol. This protocol serves as a roadmap for your review, outlining the methodology you’ll use throughout the process. The JBI scoping reviews methodology provides excellent guidance for creating a robust protocol.
Key considerations for this stage:
– Define the scope of your review
– Clarify the purpose of the scoping review (e.g., to identify knowledge gaps)
– Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
– Outline your search strategy, including databases and grey literature sources
– Consider using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews to guide your protocol development
Step 2: Conducting the Literature Search
With your protocol in place, the next step is to conduct a comprehensive literature search. This is where the scoping review process diverges significantly from a rapid review or traditional systematic review.
In a scoping review, the search is typically more expansive, encompassing a wide range of study types and sources. This approach allows for a broader mapping of the available evidence on your topic.
Key actions for this stage:
– Search multiple databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science)
– Include grey literature sources (e.g., conference proceedings, government reports)
– Use a systematic approach to document your search process
– Consider consulting with a librarian to refine your search strategy
Step 3: Screening and Selection of Studies
Once you have your initial search results, the next step in the scoping review process is to screen and select relevant studies. This stage is crucial in determining which studies will be included in your final review.
Unlike a systematic review, which often has strict inclusion criteria, a scoping review may include a wider range of study types. However, it’s still important to have clear criteria for inclusion and exclusion.
Key actions for this stage:
– Screen titles and abstracts against your inclusion criteria
– Conduct full-text review of potentially relevant studies
– Use a systematic approach to document your screening process
– Consider using screening software to manage large numbers of references
Overwhelmed by the complexities of your dissertation? Best Dissertation Writers is here to help. Our seasoned experts provide tailored support, ensuring your work meets the highest academic standards. Don’t compromise on quality – partner with us for exceptional dissertation writing services.
Step 4: Data Extraction and Charting
After selecting your studies, the next step is to extract and chart the relevant data. This stage is crucial for organizing and synthesizing the information from your included studies.
In a scoping review, data charting is typically more flexible than in a systematic review. The goal is to provide an overview of the available evidence rather than a detailed synthesis or meta-analysis.
Key considerations for this stage:
– Develop a data charting form based on your research question
– Extract key information from each study (e.g., study design, population, key findings)
– Consider using a qualitative data analysis software to manage your data
– Be prepared to iteratively refine your data charting approach as you become more familiar with the literature
Step 5: Analyzing, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results
The final step in conducting a scoping review is to analyze, summarize, and report your findings. This stage is where you bring together all the information you’ve gathered to address your original research question.
Unlike a systematic review, which often includes a meta-analysis, a scoping review typically provides a narrative summary of the findings. This summary should map the available evidence and identify any gaps in the research.
Key actions for this stage:
– Analyze the data you’ve extracted, looking for patterns and themes
– Summarize your findings in a clear and concise manner
– Use tables and figures to visually represent your results
– Follow the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews when reporting your findings
– Consider how your findings might inform future research or systematic reviews
Conducting a scoping review is a systematic and rigorous process that requires careful planning and execution. By following this 5-step guide, researchers can navigate the complexities of the scoping review methodology and produce high-quality evidence syntheses.
Remember, while scoping reviews share some similarities with systematic reviews, they are a distinct type of evidence synthesis with their own unique characteristics and purposes. Whether you’re choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach, or simply looking to understand the differences between review types, this guide provides a framework for demystifying scoping reviews and conducting them effectively.
By embracing the scoping review process, researchers can contribute valuable insights to their fields, identifying knowledge gaps and guiding future research directions. As the field of evidence synthesis continues to evolve, scoping reviews will undoubtedly play an increasingly important role in advancing our understanding of complex research landscapes.
When do I perform a Systematic Review? When do I perform a Scoping Review?
Choosing between a systematic review and a scoping review research methodology depends on several factors which determine the conduct of scoping reviews. they include the research question, the available evidence, and the intended purpose of the review. Here’s guidance for authors when choosing between these two review types:
Systematic Review:
- When there is a clearly defined research question
- When the aim is to provide a precise answer to a specific question
- When the available research is relatively homogeneous
- When the goal is to assess the quality of evidence and synthesize findings
- When meta-analysis of quantitative data is desired
Scoping Review:
- When the research question is broad or exploratory
- When the aim is to map the available evidence on a topic
- When the literature is heterogeneous or complex
- When the goal is to identify research gaps and inform future research
- When a rapid overview of a research area is needed
The choice between a systematic or scoping review approach should be guided by the nature of the research question and the intended outcomes of the review.
How a Scoping Review Differs from a Systematic Review
While scoping reviews and systematic reviews are both rigorous approaches to evidence synthesis, they differ in several key aspects:
- Research question: Systematic reviews typically address narrow, well-defined questions, while scoping reviews explore broader topics.
- Inclusion criteria: Systematic reviews often have strict inclusion criteria, whereas scoping reviews may include a wider range of study designs and methodologies.
- Quality assessment: Systematic reviews usually include a formal quality assessment of included studies, while scoping reviews may not.
- Synthesis of results: Systematic reviews aim to provide a detailed synthesis of findings, often including meta-analysis. Scoping reviews typically offer a narrative overview of the literature.
- Purpose: Systematic reviews seek to answer specific questions and inform decision-making, while scoping reviews aim to map the available evidence and identify research gaps.
- Time frame: Scoping reviews can often be conducted more rapidly than systematic reviews, making them suitable for time-sensitive topics.
- Iterative process: Scoping reviews often involve an iterative search process, allowing for refinement of the research question as the review progresses.
Understanding these differences is crucial when deciding whether a systematic review or scoping review is more appropriate for a given research project. However, the primary of either review is to identify knowledge.
Dissertation Writing Help
Struggling to balance research, writing, and life? Let Best Dissertation Writers ease your burden. Our comprehensive dissertation services cover everything from topic selection to final edits. Invest in your academic journey – connect with us for top-tier dissertation assistance today.
How are both Systematic and Scoping Reviews different from Traditional Literature Reviews?
When choosing between a systematic review or scoping review, researchers must consider the appropriate review type for their research question. The methodology for a scoping review differs from a systematic review, offering a unique approach to evidence synthesis. Conducting a scoping review involves following a scoping review protocol, which guides the review process. Scoping reviews are similar to systematic reviews in their rigorous approach but differ in scope and purpose.
Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach emphasizes the importance of aligning the type of review with the research objectives. A scoping review is designed to map existing knowledge and identify gaps, while a systematic review aims to answer specific questions. The scoping review process is particularly useful for broader topics, whereas a systematic review is likely more suitable for focused inquiries.
A scoping review on the conduct of reviews themselves can provide valuable insights into different review types and associated methodologies. Scoping reviews also offer flexibility in exploring emerging fields, making them distinct from rapid reviews or traditional literature reviews. The review protocol for a scoping review outlines the stages of the process, including the research question, evidence synthesis approach, and framework for analysis.
Understanding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types is crucial for researchers. A systematic review of qualitative evidence might be incorporated within a broader scoping review, depending on the research objectives. The choice between a systematic review or a scoping review should be guided by the way the research question is framed and the intended outcomes of the review.
Scoping reviews may be conducted to provide a comprehensive overview of a topic, identify knowledge gaps, or inform future research directions. The review process typically involves a checklist and explanation of each stage, ensuring thoroughness and transparency. Ultimately, whether conducting a systematic review or scoping review, the goal is to contribute valuable insights to the field and advance understanding of the research topic.
Both systematic and scoping reviews differ significantly from traditional literature reviews in terms of methodology, rigor, and purpose:
- Methodology: Systematic and scoping reviews follow a structured, predefined protocol, while traditional reviews may have a more flexible approach.
- Comprehensiveness: Systematic and scoping reviews aim to be comprehensive and include all relevant studies, whereas traditional reviews may be more selective.
- Transparency: The methods used in systematic and scoping reviews are explicitly stated and reproducible, unlike traditional reviews which may not detail their methodology.
- Bias minimization: Systematic and scoping reviews employ strategies to minimize bias, such as using multiple reviewers and predefined inclusion criteria.
- Quality assessment: Systematic reviews include a formal quality assessment of included studies, which is typically not present in traditional reviews or scoping reviews.
- Synthesis of evidence: Systematic reviews often include statistical synthesis (meta-analysis), while scoping reviews provide a narrative overview. Traditional reviews may vary in their approach to synthesis.
- Updating: Systematic and scoping reviews are designed to be updated as new evidence emerges, whereas traditional reviews are often one-time publications.
The Differences in the Review Types
To further clarify the distinctions between these review types, let’s examine their key characteristics:
Scoping Review:
- Broad research question
- Maps available evidence
- May include various study designs
- Typically does not include quality assessment
- Narrative synthesis of findings
- Identifies research gaps and future research directions
Systematic Review:
- Focused research question
- Comprehensive literature search
- Strict inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Formal quality assessment of studies
- Often includes meta-analysis
- Aims to answer a specific question
Traditional Literature Review:
- Variable research question
- Selective literature search
- Flexible inclusion criteria
- May not assess study quality
- Narrative synthesis of findings
- Provides an overview of a topic
Understanding these differences is crucial for researchers when choosing the most appropriate review type for their research objectives.
Key limitations of scoping review
While scoping reviews offer many benefits, they also have some limitations:
- Lack of quality assessment: Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews typically do not include a formal quality assessment of included studies.
- Broad focus: The wide scope of these reviews may make it challenging to draw specific conclusions or recommendations.
- Time-intensive: Despite being faster than systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require significant time and resources.
- Potential for bias: The broad inclusion criteria may introduce bias if not carefully managed.
- Limited synthesis: Scoping reviews provide a narrative overview rather than a detailed synthesis of findings.
- Evolving methodology: As a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis, the methodology for scoping reviews is still evolving.
Understanding these limitations is crucial for researchers considering whether a scoping review is the most appropriate method for their research objectives.
Thesis and Dissertation Writing Help
Time ticking on your thesis deadline? Best Dissertation Writers is your academic lifeline. Our team of experienced writers and researchers will help transform your ideas into a compelling, well-structured thesis. Don’t delay – reach out now and secure your academic future.
Conclusion
Scoping reviews represent a valuable approach to evidence synthesis, offering researchers a structured method to map the available literature on broad topics. The scoping review process provides a framework for investigating research conduct and identifying gaps in the existing body of knowledge.
Whether conducting a scoping review or choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach, it’s essential to follow established guidelines and maintain transparency throughout the review process. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis offers comprehensive guidance for scoping reviews, helping researchers navigate the complexities of this methodology.
As the field of evidence synthesis continues to evolve, scoping reviews will likely play an increasingly important role in informing research agendas and guiding future investigations. By understanding the nature of a scoping review and its differences from systematic reviews and traditional literature reviews, researchers can make informed decisions about which review type best suits their research question and objectives.
Frequently asked questions about scoping reviews
What is a scoping review vs. systematic review?
A scoping review and a systematic review are both approaches to evidence synthesis, but they differ in purpose and methodology. A scoping review is designed to map the available evidence on a broad topic, identify knowledge gaps, and clarify key concepts. It’s more exploratory in nature and typically includes a wider range of study designs.
In contrast, a systematic review aims to answer a specific, focused question by systematically searching, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies. Systematic reviews often include a formal quality assessment of included studies and may involve meta-analysis. While scoping reviews provide an overview of the research landscape, systematic reviews offer a more in-depth analysis of a narrower topic. The choice between these review types depends on the research objectives and the nature of the available literature.
What are the 5 stages of a scoping review?
The 5 stages of a scoping review, as outlined in the widely-used Arksey and O’Malley framework and later refined by Levac et al., are:
- Identifying the research question: Defining a clear, broad research question that guides the review.
- Identifying relevant studies: Conducting a comprehensive search of databases, grey literature, and other sources to locate potential studies.
- Study selection: Screening titles, abstracts, and full texts to determine which studies meet the inclusion criteria.
- Charting the data: Extracting and organizing relevant information from included studies into a data charting form.
- Collating, summarizing, and reporting results: Analyzing the data and presenting a narrative summary of the findings, often including implications for policy, practice, or future research.
Some frameworks include a sixth optional stage of consultation with stakeholders to gain additional insights and validate findings.
What is the difference between scoping review and mapping review?
While scoping reviews and mapping reviews are similar approaches to evidence synthesis, there are subtle differences in their focus and methodology. Scoping reviews aim to provide a broad overview of a research area, identifying key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in knowledge. They typically include a narrative summary of findings and may inform future research directions. Mapping reviews, on the other hand, focus more specifically on categorizing and describing the existing literature in a particular field.
They often result in a detailed classification of studies based on predefined criteria, such as methodological approach, geographical location, or population studied. Mapping reviews may use visual representations like tables or charts to display the distribution of studies across categories. While both types of reviews can help researchers understand the landscape of evidence in a field, mapping reviews tend to be more structured in their categorization of studies.
How long should a scoping review take?
The duration of a scoping review can vary significantly depending on several factors, including the breadth of the research question, the volume of literature to be reviewed, the size and expertise of the review team, and the available resources. Generally, a scoping review might take anywhere from 3 to 12 months to complete. A rapid scoping review, designed to provide a quick overview of a topic, might be conducted in as little as 1-3 months, but this approach may sacrifice some comprehensiveness.
More complex scoping reviews covering extensive literature or involving multiple stakeholders could take up to 18 months or longer. It’s important to note that the iterative nature of scoping reviews, which often involves refining the research question and search strategy as the review progresses, can impact the timeline. Proper planning, clear protocols, and efficient project management can help streamline the process and ensure timely completion of the review.
