Clinical and Research Support (old)

Scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews in that they describe clinical evidence rather than answering clinical questions.

Typical reasons for doing a scoping review include:

• as a precursor to a systematic review;
• to identify the types of evidence available in a given field;
• to identify and analyze knowledge gaps;
• to clarify key concepts and definitions in the literature;
• to examine how research is conducted in a certain topic or field;
• to identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept

Peters et al, 2021. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277

Scoping reviews are similar to systematic reviews in that:

• they should be done systematically and with rigour.
• a protocol should be drawn up and adhered to.
• inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined prior to starting.
• search strategies and processes should be systematic, recorded and replicable.

Differences are that:

• studies are not subject to formal critical appraisal
• analysis is more descriptive
• there are more options for presenting results, including diagrammatic or mapping.

Scoping review protocols cannot be registered with PROSPERO or JBI. Registration options include Open Science Framework and Figshare.

Article: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation: March 2021

Article: Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2018.\

JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis - Chapter 11: Scoping reviews

JBI Scoping review resources.

PRISMA for Scoping Reviews.

The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. Scoping

Scoping Reviews - Meta-evidence blog.