Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate.

Related collections

Most cited references 26

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Micah D.J. Peters, Christina M Godfrey, Hanan Khalil … (2015)

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

0 comments Cited 1964 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Cochrane Update. 'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review.

Rebecca Armstrong, Belinda Hall, Jodie Doyle … (2011)

0 comments Cited 337 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach

Zachary Munn, Kylie Porritt, Craig Lockwood … (2014)

Background The importance of findings derived from syntheses of qualitative research has been increasingly acknowledged. Findings that arise from qualitative syntheses inform questions of practice and policy in their own right and are commonly used to complement findings from quantitative research syntheses. The GRADE approach has been widely adopted by international organisations to rate the quality and confidence of the findings of quantitative systematic reviews. To date, there has been no widely accepted corresponding approach to assist health care professionals and policy makers in establishing confidence in the synthesised findings of qualitative systematic reviews. Methods A methodological group was formed develop a process to assess the confidence in synthesised qualitative research findings and develop a Summary of Findings tables for meta-aggregative qualitative systematic reviews. Results Dependability and credibility are two elements considered by the methodological group to influence the confidence of qualitative synthesised findings. A set of critical appraisal questions are proposed to establish dependability, whilst credibility can be ranked according to the goodness of fit between the author’s interpretation and the original data. By following the processes outlined in this article, an overall ranking can be assigned to rate the confidence of synthesised qualitative findings, a system we have labelled ConQual. Conclusions The development and use of the ConQual approach will assist users of qualitative systematic reviews to establish confidence in the evidence produced in these types of reviews and can serve as a practical tool to assist in decision making.

0 comments Cited 137 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Med Res Methodol

Title: BMC medical research methodology

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2288

ISSN (Print): 1471-2288

Publication date (Electronic): Nov 19 2018

Volume: 18

Issue: 1

Affiliations

[1 ] The Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, 5005, South Australia. Zachary.Munn@adelaide.edu.au.

[2 ] The Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, 5005, South Australia.