Methods Used in Conducting a Systematic Review Are Specific and Rigorous

• Debate
• Open Admission
• Published: 19 November 2018

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

• Micah D. J. Peters^ane,
• Cindy Stern¹,
• Catalin Tufanaru¹,
• Alexa McArthur^ane &
• Edoardo Aromataris¹

BMC Medical Research Methodology book 18, Commodity number:143 (2018) Cite this article

• 395k Accesses

• 1621 Citations

• 587 Altmetric

• Metrics details

Abstract

Background

Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently in that location 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 conspicuously 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.

Results

Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate enquiry conduct. While useful in their own correct, scoping reviews may too be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions.

Conclusions

Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing armory of show synthesis approaches. Although conducted for unlike purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their carry to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with articulate guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will exist less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications improve served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

Peer Review reports

Background

Systematic reviews in healthcare began to appear in publication in the 1970s and 1980s [i, 2]. With the emergence of groups such every bit Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) in the 1990s [iii], reviews have exploded in popularity both in terms of the number conducted [1], and their uptake to inform policy and practice. Today, systematic reviews are conducted for a wide range of purposes beyond various fields of inquiry, different evidence types and for unlike questions [4]. More recently, the field of testify synthesis has seen the emergence of scoping reviews, which are similar to systematic reviews in that they follow a structured procedure, however they are performed for different reasons and have some fundamental methodological differences [v,6,7,8]. Scoping reviews are now seen as a valid approach in those circumstances where systematic reviews are unable to encounter the necessary objectives or requirements of noesis users. There at present exists clear guidance regarding the definition of scoping reviews, how to conduct scoping reviews and the steps involved in the scoping review procedure [6, eight]. However, the guidance regarding the key indications or reasons why reviewers may choose to follow a scoping review approach is not equally straightforward, with scoping reviews frequently conducted for purposes that do not align with the original indications as proposed by Arksey and O'Malley [5,6,7,viii,ix,10]. As editors and peer reviewers for various journals we have noticed that at that place is inconsistency and confusion regarding the indications for scoping reviews and a lack of clarity for authors regarding when a scoping review should be performed as opposed to a systematic review. The purpose of this commodity is to provide practical guidance for reviewers on when to perform a systematic review or a scoping review, supported with some key examples.

Indications for systematic reviews

Systematic reviews tin can be broadly defined as a type of inquiry synthesis that are conducted past review groups with specialized skills, who ready out to identify and call back international evidence that is relevant to a particular question or questions and to appraise and synthesize the results of this search to inform practice, policy and in some cases, further inquiry [11,12,13]. According to the Cochrane handbook, a systematic review 'uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more than reliable findings from which conclusions can exist drawn and decisions fabricated.' [14] Systematic reviews follow a structured and pre-divers process that requires rigorous methods to ensure that the results are both reliable and meaningful to end users. These reviews may exist considered the pillar of evidence-based healthcare [15] and are widely used to inform the evolution of trustworthy clinical guidelines [11, sixteen, 17].

A systematic review may exist undertaken to ostend or refute whether or not current practice is based on relevant evidence, to establish the quality of that evidence, and to accost whatsoever uncertainty or variation in practise that may exist occurring. Such variations in practice may be due to conflicting evidence and undertaking a systematic review should (hopefully) resolve such conflicts. Conducting a systematic review may also identify gaps, deficiencies, and trends in the electric current evidence and can help underpin and inform future research in the area. Systematic reviews tin be used to produce statements to guide clinical decision-making, the commitment of care, as well as policy development [12]. Broadly, indications for systematic reviews are as follows [4]:

1. 1.

   Uncover the international evidence

2. 2.

   Confirm current practice/ address any variation/ identify new practices

3. iii.

   Identify and inform areas for hereafter research

4. four.

   Identify and investigate conflicting results

5. 5.

   Produce statements to guide decision-making

Despite the utility of systematic reviews to address the above indications, there are cases where systematic reviews are unable to meet the necessary objectives or requirements of knowledge users or where a methodologically robust and structured preliminary searching and scoping activity may be useful to inform the comport of the systematic reviews. As such, scoping reviews (which are likewise sometimes chosen scoping exercises/scoping studies) [8] have emerged equally a valid arroyo with rather different indications to those for systematic reviews. It is important to notation here that other approaches to evidence synthesis have likewise emerged, including realist reviews, mixed methods reviews, concept analyses and others [iv, 18,19,20]. This commodity focuses specifically on the choice between a systematic review or scoping review approach.

Indications for scoping reviews

True to their name, scoping reviews are an platonic tool to determine the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the book of literature and studies available equally well as an overview (broad or detailed) of its focus. Scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is even so unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review [21]. They can study on the types of testify that accost and inform do in the field and the way the research has been conducted.

The general purpose for conducting scoping reviews is to identify and map the available prove [5, 22]. Arskey and O'Malley, authors of the seminal paper describing a framework for scoping reviews, provided four specific reasons why a scoping review may exist conducted [v,half-dozen,vii, 22]. Soon after, Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien further antiseptic and extended this original framework [7]. These authors acknowledged that at the fourth dimension, there was no universally recognized definition of scoping reviews nor a unremarkably best-selling purpose or indication for conducting them. In 2015, a methodological working grouping of the JBI produced formal guidance for conducting scoping reviews [half-dozen]. However, we have non previously addressed and expanded upon the indications for scoping reviews. Below, we build upon previously described indications and propose the post-obit purposes for conducting a scoping review:

• To identify the types of bachelor evidence in a given field

• To clarify key concepts/ definitions in the literature

• To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic or field

• To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept

• As a precursor to a systematic review

• To identify and analyse knowledge gaps

Deciding between a systematic review and a scoping review approach

Authors deciding between the systematic review or scoping review approach should carefully consider the indications discussed above for each synthesis type and determine exactly what question they are asking and what purpose they are trying to achieve with their review. We suggest that the about of import consideration is whether or not the authors wish to employ the results of their review to respond a clinically meaningful question or provide show to inform practice. If the authors have a question addressing the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness or effectiveness of a sure handling or practice, so a systematic review is likely the most valid arroyo [11, 23]. All the same, authors practice not ever wish to ask such single or precise questions, and may be more interested in the identification of certain characteristics/concepts in papers or studies, and in the mapping, reporting or word of these characteristics/concepts. In these cases, a scoping review is the better choice.

Equally scoping reviews do not aim to produce a critically appraised and synthesised result/answer to a particular question, and rather aim to provide an overview or map of the evidence. Due to this, an assessment of methodological limitations or risk of bias of the evidence included within a scoping review is generally not performed (unless there is a specific requirement due to the nature of the scoping review aim) [6]. Given this assessment of bias is not conducted, the implications for practice (from a clinical or policy making point of view) that arise from a scoping review are quite unlike compared to those of a systematic review. In some cases, there may exist no need or impetus to make implications for practice and if there is a need to do and then, these implications may be significantly limited in terms of providing concrete guidance from a clinical or policy making point of view. Conversely, when nosotros compare this to systematic reviews, the provision of implications for practice is a key characteristic of systematic reviews and is recommended in reporting guidelines for systematic reviews [thirteen].

Exemplars for unlike scoping review indications

In the following section, we elaborate on each of the indications listed for scoping reviews and provide a number of examples for authors because a scoping review approach.

To place the types of available testify in a given field

Scoping reviews that seek to identify the types of evidence in a given field share similarities with evidence mapping activities equally explained by Bragge and colleagues in a paper on conducting scoping enquiry in broad topic areas [24]. Chambers and colleagues [25] conducted a scoping review in society to identify current cognition translation resources (and any evaluations of them) that use, suit and nowadays findings from systematic reviews to adapt the needs of policy makers. Post-obit a comprehensive search beyond a range of databases, organizational websites and conference abstract repositories based upon predetermined inclusion criteria, the authors identified 20 knowledge translation resources which they classified into three different types (overviews, summaries and policy briefs) as well as seven published and unpublished evaluations. The authors concluded that prove synthesists produce a range of resources to aid policy makers to transfer and utilize the findings of systematic reviews and that focussed summaries are the most mutual. Similarly, a scoping review was conducted past Challen and colleagues [26] in order to determine the types of available prove identifying the source and quality of publications and grey literature for emergency planning. A comprehensive set of databases and websites were investigated and 1603 relevant sources of evidence were identified mainly addressing emergency planning and response with fewer sources concerned with chance analysis, mitigation and capability assessment. Based on the results of the review, the authors ended that while there is a large body of evidence in the field, bug with its generalizability and validity are as yet largely unknown and that the exact type and grade of testify that would be valuable to knowledge users in the field is not yet understood.

To clarify fundamental concepts/definitions in the literature

Scoping reviews are often performed to examine and analyze definitions that are used in the literature. A scoping review by Schaink and colleagues²⁷ was performed to investigate how the notion of "patient complexity" had been defined, classified, and understood in the existing literature. A systematic search of healthcare databases was conducted. Manufactures were assessed to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria and the findings of included articles were grouped into five health dimensions. An overview of how complexity has been described was presented, including the varying definitions and interpretations of the term. The results of the scoping review enabled the authors to then develop a complication framework or model to assist in defining and understanding patient complexity [27].

Hines et al. [28] provide a farther example where a scoping review has been conducted to ascertain a concept, in this case the status bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The authors revealed meaning variation in how the status was defined across the literature, prompting the authors to call for a 'comprehensive and evidence-based definition'. [28]

To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic

Scoping reviews can exist useful tools to investigate the design and conduct of enquiry on a particular topic. A scoping review by Callary and colleagues²⁹ investigated the methodological blueprint of studies assessing article of clothing of a certain blazon of hip replacement (highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components) [29]. The aim of the scoping review was to survey the literature to determine how data pertinent to the measurement of hip replacement wear had been reported in primary studies and whether the methods were similar enough to allow for comparing across studies. The scoping review revealed that the methods to appraise wear (radiostereometric analysis) varied significantly with many different approaches existence employed amongst the investigators. The results of the scoping review led to the authors recommending enhanced standardization in measurements and methods for future research in this field [29].

At that place are other examples of scoping reviews investigating research methodology, with perhaps the nigh pertinent examples beingness two recent scoping reviews of scoping review methods [9, x]. Both of these scoping reviews investigated how scoping reviews had been reported and conducted, with both advocating for a need for clear guidance to improve standardization of methods [nine, 10]. Similarly, a scoping review investigating methodology was conducted by Tricco and colleagues³⁰ on rapid review methods that accept been evaluated, compared, used or described in the literature. A variety of rapid review approaches were identified with many instances of poor reporting identified. The authors called for prospective studies to compare results presented by rapid reviews versus systematic reviews.

To identify central characteristics or factors related to a concept

Scoping reviews tin can be conducted to identify and examine characteristics or factors related to a detail concept. Harfield and colleagues (2015) conducted a scoping review to identify the characteristics of indigenous principal healthcare service delivery models [30,31,32]. A systematic search was conducted, followed by screening and study option. Once relevant studies had been identified, a procedure of data extraction commenced to extract characteristics referred to in the included papers. Over one thousand findings were somewhen grouped into eight primal factors (attainable health services, community participation, culturally advisable and skilled workforce, culture, continuous quality improvement, flexible approaches to care, holistic health intendance, cocky-conclusion and empowerment). The results of this scoping review have been able to inform a best practice model for indigenous primary healthcare services.

As a precursor to a systematic review

Scoping reviews conducted as precursors to systematic reviews may enable authors to identify the nature of a broad field of testify so that ensuing reviews tin exist assured of locating adequate numbers of relevant studies for inclusion. They besides enable the relevant outcomes and target grouping or population for instance for a particular intervention to exist identified. This can have detail practical benefits for review teams undertaking reviews on less familiar topics and tin can assist the squad to avoid undertaking an "empty" review [33]. Scoping reviews of this kind may help reviewers to develop and confirm their a priori inclusion criteria and ensure that the questions to be posed by their subsequent systematic review are able to be answered by available, relevant evidence. In this way, systematic reviews are able to be underpinned by a preliminary and evidence-based scoping stage.

A scoping review deputed past the Uk Department for International Development was undertaken to determine the scope and nature of literature on people'south experiences of microfinance. The results of this scoping review were used to inform the development of targeted systematic review questions that focussed upon areas of particular interest [34].

In their recent scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, Tricco and colleagues^x reveal simply 12% of scoping reviews contained recommendations for the development of ensuing systematic reviews, suggesting that the majority of scoping review authors do non deport scoping reviews as a precursor to future systematic reviews.

To identify and analyze gaps in the knowledge base

Scoping reviews are rarely solely conducted to simply place and analyze gaps present in a given knowledge base, as examination and presentation of what hasn't been investigated or reported more often than not requires exhaustive examination of all of what is available. In any case, because scoping reviews tend to be a useful arroyo for reviewing prove rapidly in emerging fields or topics, identification and assay of knowledge gaps is a common and valuable indication for conducting a scoping review. A scoping review was recently conducted to review current research and identify noesis gaps on the topic of "occupational balance", or the rest of work, rest, sleep, and play [35]. Post-obit a systematic search beyond a range of relevant databases, included studies were selected and in line with predetermined inclusion criteria, were described and mapped to provide both an overall moving-picture show of the current state of the evidence in the field and to identify and highlight knowledge gaps in the area. The results of the scoping review immune the authors to illustrate several research 'gaps', including the absence of studies conducted exterior of western societies, the lack of knowledge effectually peoples' levels of occupational balance, every bit well as a famine of evidence regarding how occupational residuum may be enhanced. Equally with other scoping reviews focussed upon identifying and analyzing knowledge gaps, results such equally these permit for the identification of future research initiatives.

Discussion

Scoping reviews are now seen as a valid review approach for sure indications. A central divergence between scoping reviews and systematic reviews is that in terms of a review question, a scoping review will have a broader "scope" than traditional systematic reviews with correspondingly more expansive inclusion criteria. In addition, scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews in their overriding purpose. Nosotros have previously recommended the use of the PCC mnemonic (Population, Concept and Context) to guide question evolution [36]. The importance of clearly defining the key questions and objectives of a scoping review has been discussed previously by one of the authors, as a lack of clarity can consequence in difficulties encountered afterward on in the review process [36].

Considering their differences from systematic reviews, scoping reviews should still non be confused with traditional literature reviews. Traditional literature reviews accept been used as a means to summarise various publications or research on a particular topic for many years. In these traditional reviews, authors examine research reports in addition to conceptual or theoretical literature that focuses on the history, importance, and collective thinking around a topic, issue or concept. These types of reviews tin be considered subjective, due to their substantial reliance on the writer'due south pre-exiting knowledge and experience and equally they do not normally present an unbiased, exhaustive and systematic summary of a topic [12]. Regardless of some of these limitations, traditional literature reviews may still accept some use in terms of providing an overview of a topic or issue. Scoping reviews provide a useful alternative to literature reviews when clarification effectually a concept or theory is required. If traditional literature reviews are contrasted with scoping reviews, the latter [6]:

• Are informed past an a priori protocol

• Are systematic and often include exhaustive searching for data

• Aim to be transparent and reproducible

• Include steps to reduce error and increase reliability (such as the inclusion of multiple reviewers)

• Ensure data is extracted and presented in a structured way

Another approach to evidence synthesis that has emerged recently is the production of prove maps [37]. The purpose of these evidence maps is similar to scoping reviews to identify and analyse gaps in the knowledge base [37, 38]. In fact, about testify mapping manufactures cite seminal scoping review guidance for their methods [38]. The two approaches therefore accept many similarities, with perhaps the nigh prominent divergence being the production of a visual database or schematic (i.e. map) which assists the user in interpreting where evidence exists and where there are gaps [38]. As Miake-Lye states, at this stage 'it is difficult to determine where one method ends and the other begins.' [38] Both approaches may be valid when the indication is for determining the extent of testify on a particular topic, peculiarly when highlighting gaps in the research.

A further popular method to define and scope concepts, particularly in nursing, is through the conduct of a concept assay [39,xl,41,42]. Formal concept analysis is 'a process whereby concepts are logically and systematically investigated to course articulate and rigorously synthetic conceptual definitions,' [42] which is similar to scoping reviews where the indication is to clarify concepts in the literature. In that location is limited methodological guidance on how to bear a concept assay and recently they accept been critiqued for having no bear upon on practice [39]. In our opinion, scoping reviews (where the purpose is to systematically investigate a concept in the literature) offer a methodologically rigorous alternative to concept analysis with their results perhaps being more useful to inform exercise.

Comparison and contrasting the characteristics of traditional literature reviews, scoping reviews and systematic reviews may help clarify the true essence of these unlike types of reviews (see Table 1).

Tabular array 1 Defining characteristics of traditional literature reviews, scoping reviews and systematic reviews

Full size table

Rapid reviews are another emerging type of evidence synthesis and a substantial corporeality of literature have addressed these types of reviews [43,44,45,46,47]. There are various definitions for rapid reviews, and for simplification purposes, nosotros ascertain these review types as 'systematic reviews with shortcuts.' In this newspaper, we accept not discussed the choice betwixt a rapid or systematic review approach equally we are of the opinion that possibly the major consideration for conducting a rapid review (as compared to a systematic or scoping review) is non the purpose/question itself, only the feasibility of conducting a full review given financial/resource limitations and time pressures. Every bit such, a rapid review could potentially be conducted for any of the indications listed above for the scoping or systematic review, whilst shortening or skipping entirely some steps in the standard systematic or scoping review process.

There is some overlap beyond the six listed purposes for conducting a scoping review described in this paper. For instance, it is logical to presume that if a review group were aiming to identify the types of available evidence in a field they would also exist interested in identifying and analysing gaps in the cognition base. Other combinations of purposes for scoping reviews would also brand sense for certain questions/aims. Nevertheless, we have called to list them as discrete reasons in this paper in an endeavour to provide some much needed clarity on the appropriate purposes for conducting scoping reviews. As such, scoping review authors should not interpret our list of indications equally a discrete list where simply one purpose can be identified.

It is important to mention some potential abuses of scoping reviews. Reviewers may conduct a scoping review as an culling to a systematic review in order to avoid the critical appraisement stage of the review and expedite the procedure, thinking that a scoping review may be easier than a systematic review to behave. Other reviewers may conduct a scoping review in order to 'map' the literature when there is no obvious need for 'mapping' in this particular subject field expanse. Others may conduct a scoping review with very broad questions as an alternative to investing the fourth dimension and effort required to craft the necessary specific questions required for undertaking a systematic review. In these cases, scoping reviews are not appropriate and authors should refer to our guidance regarding whether they should be conducting a systematic review instead.

This article provides some clarification on when to deport a scoping review as compared to a systematic review and articulate guidance on the purposes for conducting a scoping review. We promise that this paper will provide a useful addition to this evolving methodology and encourage others to review, modify and build upon these indications as the approach matures. Further work in scoping review methods is required, with perhaps the most of import advancement beingness the recent development of an extension to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for scoping reviews [48] and the development of software and training programs to support these reviews [49, l]. Every bit the methodology advances, guidance for scoping reviews (such as that included in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer'south Transmission) will require revision, refining and updating.

Conclusion

Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Researchers may preference the conduct of a scoping review over a systematic review where the purpose of the review is to place knowledge gaps, telescopic a body of literature, clarify concepts, investigate enquiry conduct, or to inform a systematic review. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our promise is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to carry a scoping review or a systematic review, there will exist less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served past a systematic review, and vice-versa.

References

1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a mean solar day: how will nosotros ever keep upward? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

   Article  Google Scholar

2. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A cursory history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):12–37.

   Article  Google Scholar

3. Jordan Z, Munn Z, Aromataris Due east, Lockwood C. At present that nosotros're here, where are we? The JBI arroyo to bear witness-based healthcare 20 years on. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(three):117–xx.

   Article  Google Scholar

4. Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I deport? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5.

   Article  Google Scholar

5. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;eight(one):xix–32.

   Article  Google Scholar

6. Peters Doc, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.

   Article  Google Scholar

7. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;v(1):1.

   Article  Google Scholar

8. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4.

   Article  Google Scholar

9. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

   Article  Google Scholar

10. Tricco Air conditioning, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the comport and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

11. Pearson A. Balancing the testify: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative information into systematic reviews. JBI Reports. 2004;2:45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar

12. Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. AJN The American Journal of Nursing. 2014;114(three):53–viii.

    Article  Google Scholar

13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical enquiry ed). 2009;339:b2700.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

14. Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.ane.0 [updated March 2011]. ed: The Cochrane Collaboration 2011.

15. Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, Pearson A. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual arroyo. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:108.

    Article  Google Scholar

16. Pearson A, Jordan Z, Munn Z. Translational science and evidence-based healthcare: a description and reconceptualization of how knowledge is generated and used in healthcare. Nursing research and practice. 2012;2012:792519.

    Article  Google Scholar

17. Steinberg E, Greenfield S, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Graham R. Clinical practice guidelines we tin can trust. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

18. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1:28.

    Article  Google Scholar

19. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

20. Tricco Air conditioning, Tetzlaff J, Moher D. The art and science of noesis synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):11–xx.

    Article  Google Scholar

21. Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters Due east. 'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review. J Public Health. 2011;33(i):147–50.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

22. Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S, Goodwin Due north. Asking the correct questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Wellness Inquiry Policy and Systems. 2008;6(1):ane.

    Article  Google Scholar

23. Pearson A, Wiechula R, Courtroom A, Lockwood C. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2005;3(8):207–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar

24. Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, Tavender East, Collie A, Gruen RL. The global evidence mapping initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:92.

    Article  Google Scholar

25. Chambers D, Wilson PM, Thompson CA, Hanbury A, Farley Yard, Calorie-free K. Maximizing the bear on of systematic reviews in health care decision making: a systematic scoping review of cognition-translation resources. Milbank Q. 2011;89(1):131–56.

    Article  Google Scholar

26. Challen 1000, Lee Air conditioning, Booth A, Gardois P, Wood HB, Goodacre SW. Where is the show for emergency planning: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:542.

    Article  Google Scholar

27. Schaink AK, Kuluski K, Lyons RF, et al. A scoping review and thematic classification of patient complexity: offering a unifying framework. Journal of comorbidity. 2012;two(ane):one–9.

    Article  Google Scholar

28. Hines D, Modi N, Lee SK, Isayama T, Sjörs G, Gagliardi L, Lehtonen 50, Vento M, Kusuda Southward, Bassler D, Mori R. Scoping review shows wide variation in the definitions of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants and calls for a consensus. Acta Paediatr. 2017;106(three):366–74.

    Article  Google Scholar

29. Callary SA, Solomon LB, Holubowycz OT, Campbell DG, Munn Z, Howie DW. Wear of highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(two):159–68.

    Article  Google Scholar

30. Davy C, Harfield S, McArthur A, Munn Z, Brown A. Admission to primary health care services for ethnic peoples: a framework synthesis. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15(1):163.

    Article  Google Scholar

31. Harfield South, Davy C, Kite E, et al. Characteristics of indigenous primary health care models of service delivery: a scoping review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13(eleven):43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar

32. Harfield SG, Davy C, McArthur A, Munn Z, Chocolate-brown A, Brown Due north. Characteristics of indigenous primary health care service delivery models: a systematic scoping review. Glob Health. 2018;14(1):12.

    Article  Google Scholar

33. Peters MDJ LC, Munn Z, Moola S, Mishra RK (2015) , Protocol. Adelaide: the Joanna Briggs Institute UoA. What are people'due south views and experiences of delivering and participating in microfinance interventions? A systematic review of qualitative evidence from South Asia.

34. Peters MDJ LC, Munn Z, Moola Southward, Mishra RK People's views and experiences of participating in microfinance interventions: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. London: EPPI-Center: social science enquiry unit, UCL Institute of instruction, University College London; 2016.

35. Wagman P, Håkansson C, Jonsson H. Occupational balance: a scoping review of current enquiry and identified noesis gaps. J Occup Sci. 2015;22(2):160–9.

    Article  Google Scholar

36. Peters MD. In no uncertain terms: the importance of a divers objective in scoping reviews. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(2):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar

37. Hetrick SE, Parker AG, Callahan P, Purcell R. Evidence mapping: illustrating an emerging methodology to improve testify-based practice in youth mental health. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(6):1025–xxx.

    Article  Google Scholar

38. Miake-Lye IM, Hempel South, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published bear witness maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic reviews. 2016;5(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar

39. Draper P. A critique of concept assay. J Adv Nurs. 2014;lxx(six):1207–8.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

40. Gibson CH. A concept analysis of empowerment. J Adv Nurs. 1991;xvi(3):354–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

41. Meeberg GA. Quality of life: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 1993;18(one):32–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

42. Ream East, Richardson A. Fatigue: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 1996;33(5):519–29.

    CAS  Commodity  Google Scholar

43. Tricco Air conditioning, Antony J, Zarin Due west, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224.

    Article  Google Scholar

44. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.

    Article  Google Scholar

45. Harker J, Kleijnen J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in wellness technology assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10(4):397–410.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

46. Khangura Due south, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the development of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;ane:10.

    Article  Google Scholar

47. Munn Z, Lockwood C, Moola S. The development and use of testify summaries for indicate of care information systems: a streamlined rapid review approach. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2015;12(3):131–8.

    Article  Google Scholar

48. Tricco AC, Lillie Due east, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  Google Scholar

49. Munn Z, Aromataris Eastward, Tufanaru C, Stern C, Porritt M, Farrow J, Lockwood C, Stephenson M, Moola South, Lizarondo L, McArthur A. The development of software to back up multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs constitute system for the unified direction, assessment and review of information (JBI SUMARI). Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2018. (in press)

50. Stern C, Munn Z, Porritt K, et al. An international educational training course for conducting systematic reviews in health intendance: the Joanna Briggs Plant'due south comprehensive systematic review training plan. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2018;15(v):401–8.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

No funding was provided for this paper.

Availability of data and materials

Non applicable.

Writer information

Affiliations

1. The Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 Rex William Road, N Adelaide, 5005, South Australia

   Zachary Munn, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur & Edoardo Aromataris

Contributions

ZM: Led the development of this paper and conceptualised the thought for a paper on indications for scoping reviews. Provided final approving for submission. MP: Contributed conceptually to the paper and wrote sections of the paper. Provided terminal approval for submission. CS: Contributed conceptually to the paper and wrote sections of the paper. Provided final blessing for submission. CT: Contributed conceptually to the paper and wrote sections of the newspaper. Provided final approval for submission. AM: Contributed conceptually to the newspaper and reviewed and provided feedback on all drafts. Provided concluding approval for submission. EA: Contributed conceptually to the newspaper and reviewed and provided feedback on all drafts. Provided blessing and encouragement for the work to continue. Provided terminal approval for submission.

Respective author

Correspondence to Zachary Munn.

Ethics declarations

Ideals approval and consent to participate

Non applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All the authors are members of the Joanna Briggs Institute, an evidence-based healthcare enquiry institute which provides formal guidance regarding evidence synthesis, transfer and implementation. Zachary Munn is a fellow member of the editorial board of this journal. The authors have no other competing interests to declare.

Publisher's Notation

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This commodity is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/four.0/), which permits unrestricted utilize, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided you lot requite appropriate credit to the original author(due south) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Munn, Z., Peters, One thousand.D.J., Stern, C. et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review arroyo. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 143 (2018). https://doi.org/x.1186/s12874-018-0611-10

Download commendation

• Received: 21 February 2018

• Accepted: 06 November 2018

• Published: xix November 2018

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-10

Keywords

• Systematic review
• Scoping review
• Evidence-based healthcare

chenwassend.blogspot.com

Source: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Share this post