What is a rapid review? Chambers and colleagues [25] conducted a scoping review in order to identify current knowledge translation resources (and any evaluations of them) that use, adapt and present findings from systematic reviews to suit the needs of policy makers. Arksey and O’Malley framework (2005, p. 22-23) Enhancements proposed by Levac et al. Over 1000 findings were eventually grouped into eight key factors (accessible health services, community participation, culturally appropriate and skilled workforce, culture, continuous quality improvement, flexible approaches to care, holistic health care, self-determination and empowerment). 1993;18(1):32–8. 2011;64(1):11–20. PubMed Google Scholar. However, authors do not always 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 discussion of these characteristics/concepts. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Grant MJ, Booth A. Schaink AK, Kuluski K, Lyons RF, et al. Meeberg GA. Quality of life: a concept analysis. A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. The authors called for prospective studies to compare results presented by rapid reviews versus systematic reviews. This can have particular practical benefits for review teams undertaking reviews on less familiar topics and can assist the team to avoid undertaking an “empty” review [33]. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Moher D. The art and science of knowledge synthesis. The authors have no other competing interests to declare. With the emergence of groups such as Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) in the 1990s [3], reviews have exploded in popularity both in terms of the number conducted [1], and their uptake to inform policy and practice. Relevant more generic / specialised reporting guidelines (i.e. CT: Contributed conceptually to the paper and wrote sections of the paper. 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]. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. “A scoping review or scoping study is a form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed at mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research related to a defined area or field by systematically searching, selecting, and synthesizing existing knowledge” Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C. et al. Another approach to evidence synthesis that has emerged recently is the production of evidence maps [37]. It is important to mention some potential abuses of scoping reviews. The purpose of this article is to clearly 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. Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, O'Brien, KK, Colquhoun, H, Levac, D, Moher, D, Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. 2018;169(7):467–73. Following the same process, as the conduct of a systematic review, the scoping review protocol pre-defines the objectives and methods of the scoping review and details the proposed plans. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. This scoping review describes current guidelines for the dietary management of pediatric obesity and severe obesity. 2016;16:15. Chambers D, Wilson PM, Thompson CA, Hanbury A, Farley K, Light K. Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: a systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources. 2012;10(4):397–410. Hines D, Modi N, Lee SK, Isayama T, Sjörs G, Gagliardi L, Lehtonen L, Vento M, Kusuda S, Bassler D, Mori R. Scoping review shows wide variation in the definitions of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants and calls for a consensus. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not … Stern C, Munn Z, Porritt K, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. Implement Sci. Scoping reviews serve to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of literature on a topic. ZM: Led the development of this paper and conceptualised the idea for a paper on indications for scoping reviews. A systematic search of healthcare databases was conducted. Int J Soc Res Methodol. The Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, 5005, South Australia, Zachary Munn, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur & Edoardo Aromataris, You can also search for this author in A scoping review requires at least two reviewers and, as with all systematic reviews, an a priori scoping review protocol must be developed prior to undertaking the review itself. Among other objectives, scoping reviews help determine whether a systematic review of the literature is warranted. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. 2 Scoping reviews can be useful for answering broad questions, such as “What information has been presented … They can report on the types of evidence that address and inform practice in the field and the way the research has been conducted. Nursing research and practice. Gaps in COPD guidelines of low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review - CHEST 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 research conduct. Harfield and colleagues (2015) conducted a scoping review to identify the characteristics of indigenous primary healthcare service delivery models [30,31,32]. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. Callary SA, Solomon LB, Holubowycz OT, Campbell DG, Munn Z, Howie DW. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. Results: The scoping review has been completed. more information, Item 12: Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence, Item 14: Selection of sources of evidence, Item 15: Characteristics of sources of evidence, Item 16: Critical appraisal within sources of evidence, Item 17: Results of individual sources of evidence. Systematic review: Characteristics: The scope of the review is identified in advance (eg review question and sub‐questions and/or sub‐group analysis to be undertaken) Comprehensive search to find all relevant studies; Use of explicit criteria to include / exclude studies; Application of established standards to critically appraise study quality 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 conduct of the systematic reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. What is an evidence map? Scoping reviews can be conducted to identify and examine characteristics or factors related to a particular concept. The scoping review has become increasingly popular as a form of knowledge synthesis. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. The results of the scoping review enabled the authors to then develop a complexity framework or model to assist in defining and understanding patient complexity [27]. 2018;18(1):5. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. These reviews may be considered the pillar of evidence-based healthcare [15] and are widely used to inform the development of trustworthy clinical guidelines [11, 16, 17]. Provided final approval for submission. A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Clarifying and linking the purpose and research question. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. As such, scoping reviews (which are also sometimes called scoping exercises/scoping studies) [8] have emerged as a valid approach with rather different indications to those for systematic reviews. As the methodology advances, guidance for scoping reviews (such as that included in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual) will require revision, refining and updating. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. Pearson A. [28]. Terms and Conditions, PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. 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 different compared to those of a systematic review. 2018;15(5):401–8. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Pearson A, Jordan Z, Munn Z. Translational science and evidence-based healthcare: a clarification and reconceptualization of how knowledge is generated and used in healthcare. The results of the scoping review led to the authors recommending enhanced standardization in measurements and methods for future research in this field [29]. The purpose of this article is to provide practical guidance for reviewers on when to perform a systematic review or a scoping review, supported with some key examples. Systematic reviews. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. In 2015, a methodological working group of the JBI produced formal guidance for conducting scoping reviews [6]. As such, scoping review authors should not interpret our list of indications as a discrete list where only one purpose can be identified. BMC Med. 2012;12:542. Systematic Reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. (in press). Scoping Guidelines Scoping Guidelines are intended to provide direction to the designers on best practices for the scoping of many types of Capital Improvement Program projects, as well as certain Lease Conversions. Despite its increasing use, to date no article reflecting use of scoping review methodology has been submitted for review at JAANP. 2005;8(1):19–32. 2015;13:224. An international educational training course for conducting systematic reviews in health care: the Joanna Briggs Institute's comprehensive systematic review training program. Res Synth Methods. The systematic review: an overview. EA: Contributed conceptually to the paper and reviewed and provided feedback on all drafts. Based on the results of the review, the authors concluded that while there is a large body of evidence in the field, issues with its generalizability and validity are as yet largely unknown and that the exact type and form of evidence that would be valuable to knowledge users in the field is not yet understood. As 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. TRANSPARENT REPORTING of SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS and META-ANALYSES, Read here for CAS  There are various definitions for rapid reviews, and for simplification purposes, we define these review types as ‘systematic reviews with shortcuts.’ In this paper, we have not discussed the choice between a rapid or systematic review approach as we are of the opinion that perhaps the major consideration for conducting a rapid review (as compared to a systematic or scoping review) is not the purpose/question itself, but the feasibility of conducting a full review given financial/resource limitations and time pressures. Glob Health. Journal of comorbidity. The purpose of these evidence maps is similar to scoping reviews to identify and analyse gaps in the knowledge base [37, 38]. Zachary Munn. Systematic reviews can be broadly defined as a type of research synthesis that are conducted by review groups with specialized skills, who set out to identify and retrieve 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 research [11,12,13]. Provided final approval for submission. J Occup Sci. 2009;339:b2700. explained in more depth shortly. Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E. ‘Scoping the scope’ of a cochrane review. A scoping review commissioned by the United Kingdom Department for International Development was undertaken to determine the scope and nature of literature on people’s experiences of microfinance. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(2):1–4. In fact, most evidence mapping articles cite seminal scoping review guidance for their methods [38]. In no uncertain terms: the importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews. Please check back for publication timeline. A scoping review by Callary and colleagues29 investigated the methodological design of studies assessing wear of a certain type of hip replacement (highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components) [29]. Results may include a logical diagram or table or any descriptive form that aligns with the scope and objectives of the review. (2014) suggest that a scoping review or study is a "form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed Gibson CH. 2012;1:10. 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. Int J Evid Based Healthc. In some cases, there may be no need or impetus to make implications for practice and if there is a need to do so, these implications may be significantly limited in terms of providing concrete guidance from a clinical or policy making point of view. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the practice guidelines related to RN and R/LPN collaborative practice in acute care, summarize and disseminate the findings, and identify any gaps in the literature. the scoping review can be used to provide direction for the ensuing systematic review or reviews, and may have value in helping the reviewers to identify and define more precise questions and suitable inclusion criteria such as the interventions, comparators and outcome/s of interest. Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, Pearson A. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 143 (2018). on a topic. Reviewers may conduct a scoping review as an alternative to a systematic review in order to avoid the critical appraisal stage of the review and expedite the process, thinking that a scoping review may be easier than a systematic review to conduct. Fatigue: a concept analysis. Article  BMC Medical Research Methodology Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. J Eval Clin Pract. Key aims of scoping reviews are to provide systematic and substantial coverage of mature subjects, evaluations of progress in specified areas, and/or critical assessments of emerging technologies. Following a comprehensive search across 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. 1991;16(3):354–61. However, we have chosen to list them as discrete reasons in this paper in an effort to provide some much needed clarity on the appropriate purposes for conducting scoping reviews. The checklist contains 2. These types of reviews can be considered subjective, due to their substantial reliance on the author’s pre-exiting knowledge and experience and as they do not normally present an unbiased, exhaustive and systematic summary of a topic [12]. Below, we build upon previously described indications and suggest the following purposes for conducting a scoping review: To identify the types of available 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. Characteristics of indigenous primary health care models of service delivery: a scoping review protocol. Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Comparing and contrasting the characteristics of traditional literature reviews, scoping reviews and systematic reviews may help clarify the true essence of these different types of reviews (see Table 1). All the authors are members of the Joanna Briggs Institute, an evidence-based healthcare research institute which provides formal guidance regarding evidence synthesis, transfer and implementation. [28] provide a further example where a scoping review has been conducted to define a concept, in this case the condition bronchopulmonary dysplasia. During the pandemic, many medical services, including facilities providing care to patients with end stage renal disease faced challenges in safeguarding patients and staff while providing clinical care. Objectives The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far. A scoping review is a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and differs from systematic reviews in its purpose and aims. We hope 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. Provided approval and encouragement for the work to proceed. 2016;15(1):163. J Public Health. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Adelaide: the Joanna Briggs Institute UoA. Articles were assessed to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria and the findings of included articles were grouped into five health dimensions. (2010, p. 4-8) *Enhancements proposed by Peters et al (2015, 2017, 2020). 2010;5:56. 2015;13(3):141–6. Acta Orthop. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps… Health Inf Libr J. Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, Stern C, Porritt K, Farrow J, Lockwood C, Stephenson M, Moola S, Lizarondo L, McArthur A. The purpose of this art- icle is to provide practical guidance for reviewers on when to perform a systematic review or a scoping re- view, supported with some key examples. Part of Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. In these cases, a scoping review is the better choice. 2012;1:28. 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping For example, 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 be interested in identifying and analysing gaps in the knowledge base. In this way, systematic reviews are able to be underpinned by a preliminary and evidence-based scoping stage. What are people’s views and experiences of delivering and participating in microfinance interventions? Scoping reviews can be useful tools to investigate the design and conduct of research on a particular topic. Scoping reviews provide comprehensive and authoritative coverage of a topic area. Provided final approval for submission. Ann Intern Med. statement and We propose that the most important consideration is whether or not the authors wish to use the results of their review to answer a clinically meaningful question or provide evidence to inform practice. 2005;3(8):207–15. Higgins J, Green S, eds. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa. review of the literature is warranted. reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. 2010;5(1):1. The general purpose for conducting scoping reviews is to identify and map the available evidence [5, 22]. © 2020 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. There is some overlap across the six listed purposes for conducting a scoping review described in this paper. Syst Rev. volume 18, Article number: 143 (2018) Davy C, Harfield S, McArthur A, Munn Z, Brown A. Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. If traditional literature reviews are contrasted with scoping reviews, the latter [6]: Are systematic and often include exhaustive searching for information, 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. Formal concept analysis is ‘a process whereby concepts are logically and systematically investigated to form clear and rigorously constructed conceptual definitions,’ [42] which is similar to scoping reviews where the indication is to clarify concepts in the literature. Such variations in practice may be due to conflicting evidence and undertaking a systematic review should (hopefully) resolve such conflicts. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Abstract (summary): Objectives: The scoping review has become increasingly popular as a form of knowledge synthesis. Peters MDJ LC, Munn Z, Moola S, Mishra RK People’s views and experiences of participating in microfinance interventions: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. A key difference 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. Although there is no definitive definition of what a scoping review is, the general consensus amongst authors is that Mays et al (2001) best describes a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. Hines et al. Others may conduct a scoping review with very broad questions as an alternative to investing the time and effort required to craft the necessary specific questions required for undertaking a systematic review.