Exploring the Value and Process of Scoping Reviews in Evidence Synthesis

Exploring the Value and Process of Scoping Reviews in Evidence Synthesis

Introduction:

Evidence synthesis plays a crucial role in informing practice and policy decisions in various fields. Among the different types of reviews, scoping reviews have gained recognition for their unique approach in mapping and charting available evidence on a specific topic. In this article, we will delve into the value and process of scoping reviews, highlighting their limitations and discussing their results in the context of current literature, practice, and policy.

Understanding Scoping Reviews:

Unlike other types of reviews, scoping reviews begin with the development of an a priori protocol that outlines the review question/s and inclusion/exclusion criteria. These reviews aim to provide a broader "scope" by incorporating evidence from diverse sources and research methodologies. By drawing upon quantitative and qualitative data, scoping reviews offer a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on a particular topic.

Mapping the Evidence:

The primary objective of a scoping review is to determine the kind of evidence available and represent it through mapping or charting the data. This approach allows researchers to identify gaps in knowledge, explore emerging trends, and gain insights into the overall landscape of the topic under investigation.

Comparing Scoping Reviews with Other Types of Review:

When comparing scoping reviews with traditional literature reviews and systematic reviews, it becomes evident that each type serves a unique purpose. Traditional literature reviews focus on summarizing existing evidence, while systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions using a predefined set of inclusion/exclusion criteria. Scoping reviews, on the other hand, provide a broader overview of evidence, often including studies with varying methodologies and sources.

Limitations of Scoping Reviews:

Despite their value in evidence synthesis, scoping reviews have certain limitations that researchers should consider. Firstly, scoping reviews do not provide a rating of the quality of evidence, making it challenging to grade the implications for practice or policy. Additionally, scoping reviews should not repeat the results of the review, emphasizing the need for researchers to analyze and discuss the results in the context of current literature, practice, and policy.

Actionable Advice for Conducting Scoping Reviews:

1. Develop a clear and concise a priori protocol: Before embarking on a scoping review, it is crucial to outline the review question/s and establish inclusion/exclusion criteria. This protocol serves as a guide throughout the review process, ensuring consistency and transparency.

2. Be inclusive in the search for evidence: One of the strengths of scoping reviews is their ability to incorporate evidence from diverse sources and research methodologies. Researchers should cast a wide net when searching for relevant studies, utilizing platforms like Open Science Framework and Figshare to access a variety of data.

3. Analyze and discuss results in context: While scoping reviews do not provide a rating of evidence quality, researchers should analyze and discuss the results in the context of current literature, practice, and policy. This approach enhances the relevance and applicability of the findings, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions.

Conclusion:

Scoping reviews offer a valuable approach in evidence synthesis, allowing researchers to map and chart available evidence on a specific topic. By embracing a broader scope and incorporating evidence from diverse sources, scoping reviews provide insights into the overall landscape of a field. However, researchers should be mindful of the limitations and ensure that the results are discussed in the context of current literature, practice, and policy. By following actionable advice, researchers can conduct rigorous and impactful scoping reviews that contribute to evidence-based decision-making.