The Role of Critical Appraisal in Scoping and Systematic Reviews: Exploring Common Points and Best Practices

The Role of Critical Appraisal in Scoping and Systematic Reviews: Exploring Common Points and Best Practices

Introduction:
Undertaking a scoping review or a systematic review is a crucial step in evidence synthesis. Both methods serve different purposes and require careful consideration before embarking on the review process. In this article, we will delve into the role of critical appraisal in scoping and systematic reviews, highlighting common points and best practices for researchers to follow. Additionally, we will discuss the importance of disclosures and contributions in the review process. Let's explore these topics in detail.

Critical Appraisal in Scoping Reviews:
Scoping reviews aim to provide an overview of existing evidence on a particular topic, mapping the key concepts, sources, and gaps in the literature. Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews do not aim to assess the quality or validity of the included studies. Therefore, the need for critical appraisal in scoping reviews is often questioned.

While some scoping reviews have utilized critical appraisal methods, it is important to note that they are not inherently wrong. In certain rare scenarios or edge cases, critical appraisal may provide valuable insights. However, the primary purpose of scoping reviews is to identify the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, or effectiveness of a treatment, rather than making specific recommendations. Thus, critical appraisal may not align with the objectives of scoping reviews in most cases.

Common Points in Scoping and Systematic Reviews:
Although critical appraisal may not be a common practice in scoping reviews, there are several common points between scoping and systematic reviews. Both methodologies require researchers to adhere to certain standards and guidelines to ensure the credibility and transparency of the review process.

One such common point is the disclosure of funding sources. Both scoping and systematic reviews should clearly state any sources of funding for the review project. It is essential to acknowledge the role of all funders in the review process to maintain transparency and avoid any potential biases.

Moreover, researchers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest or professional and intellectual biases. This disclosure is crucial to maintain the objectivity and integrity of the review. Adhering to ICMJE criteria for authorship and acknowledging the contributions of individuals involved in the review process is also essential.

Best Practices and Actionable Advice:

1. Understand the Purpose: Before deciding between a scoping review or a systematic review, it is crucial to clearly understand the purpose of your research. If you aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence, a scoping review may be more suitable. On the other hand, if you aim to assess the quality and validity of the included studies, a systematic review would be a better choice.

2. Align with Guidelines: Regardless of the review methodology chosen, researchers should align with established guidelines and standards. For scoping reviews, following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis can provide a comprehensive framework. For systematic reviews, guidelines such as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions offer valuable insights.

3. Consult with Experts: Seek expert advice throughout the review process. Engage with individuals who have expertise in the relevant existing literature or specific aspects of the review. Their insights can greatly enhance the quality and rigor of your review.

Conclusion:
Scoping reviews and systematic reviews serve different purposes, and the role of critical appraisal may vary between the two methodologies. While critical appraisal is not a common practice in scoping reviews, it may have its merits in certain scenarios. However, researchers should prioritize the objectives of their review and align with established guidelines and standards. Transparency through disclosure of funding sources, conflicts of interest, and contributions is vital for maintaining the integrity of the review process. By following best practices and seeking expert advice, researchers can ensure their reviews are robust, reliable, and informative.