11.1.1 Why a scoping review? - JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis - JBI Global Wiki

Tags

Top Highlights

• Perhaps the most important consideration is whether or not the authors wish to use the results of their review as the basis for a trustworthy clinical guideline, to answer a clinically meaningful question, or provide evidence to inform practice or policy (Munn et al. 2018a).

• 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) (Khalil et al. 2016; Peters et al. 2015)

• A scoping review of scoping reviews found that the three most common reasons for conducting a scoping review were to explore the breadth or extent of the literature, map and summarize the evidence, and inform future research (Tricco et al. 2016b)

• To identify the types of available evidence in a given field. To identify and analyse knowledge gaps.

• Unlike a systematic review, scoping reviews do not tend to produce and report results that have been synthesized from multiple evidence sources following a formal process of methodological appraisal to determine the quality of the evidence. Rather, scoping reviews aim to provide an overview or map of the evidence

• Unlike other reviews that tend to address relatively precise questions (such as a systematic review of the effectiveness of an intervention assessed using a predefined set of outcomes), scoping reviews can be used to map the key concepts that underpin a field of research, as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic (Arksey & O’Malley 2005).

• A scoping review of scoping reviews found that the three most common reasons for conducting a scoping review were to explore the breadth or extent of the literature, map and summarize the evidence, and inform future research (Tricco et al. 2016b).

• To identify and analyse knowledge gaps

• It is important for authors to clearly articulate why they are undertaking a scoping review; i.e. why is it necessary to identify and map the evidence in a given field? What will mapping the evidence achieve in terms of the objective of the review?

• Perhaps the most important consideration is whether or not the authors wish to use the results of their review as the basis for a trustworthy clinical guideline, to answer a clinically meaningful question, or provide evidence to inform practice or policy (Munn et al. 2018a). If so, then a systematic review approach is best. If the authors have a question addressing the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness or effectiveness of a certain treatment or practice, then a systematic review is likely the most valid approach (Pearson 2004, 2005).

• However, authors do not always wish to ask single or precise clinical questions and may be more interested in the identification of certain characteristics/concepts in sources of evidence, and in the mapping, reporting or discussion of these characteristics/concepts. In these cases, a scoping review is the better choice.

• 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) (Khalil et al. 2016; Peters et al. 2015)

• it is important that reviewers clearly describe the rationale behind their particular scoping review within both the protocol and the review. This gives readers a clearer understanding of the importance of the topic and why a particular type of scoping review is being conducted.

• s revisões de escopo visam fornecer uma visão geral ou mapa das evidência

• conceitos-chave que sustentam um campo de pesquisa, bem como como para esclarecer as definições de trabalho e/ou os limites conceituais de um tópico

• fornecer um “mapa” da evidência

• os autores nem sempre desejam fazer perguntas clínicas únicas ou precisas e podem estar mais interessados ​​na identificação de certas características/conceitos em fontes de evidência e no mapeamento, relato ou discussão dessas características/conceitos.

• “mapas de políticas”, identificando e mapeando evidências de documentos e relatórios de políticas que orientam a prática em um determinado campo