Guides & Tutorials: Systematic Search for Systematic Review: Scoping Reviews (ScR)

Overview

Definition for Scoping Reviews

According to Munn et al. (2022), scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, often irrespective of source (i.e., primary research, reviews, non-empirical evidence) within or across particular contexts. Scoping reviews can clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature and identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept, including those related to methodological research.

Purposes for Conducting a Scoping Review

Scoping reviews are exploratory in nature and the main reason for conducting a scoping review is to explore the breadth of research. Munn et al. (2018) 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
As a precursor to a systematic review
To identify and analyse knowledge gaps

Source:

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Khalil, H., Alexander, L., Mclnerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., Peters, M., & Tricco, A. C. (2022). What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20(4), 950-952. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-21-00483

Scoping Review vs Systematic Review

Scoping Reviews and Systematic Reviews are types of literature reviews and examples of knowledge synthesis that use systematic methods to collect studies. To help you understand the similarities and differences between a scoping review and a systematic review, please review the video and the comparison charts below.

The table below highlights key differences between the two evidence synthesis methods.

Criteria	Scoping Review	Systematic Review
Research Question	Board, Exploratory	Focused, Specific
Objective	Capture the breadth of literature Map literature to identify gaps in literature Inform a systematic review or further research Identify key concepts and concepts	Capture the depth of literature Answer the research question by finding the best available evidence Assess the quality of the available evidence
Protocol/ Research Plan	Good to have	A Priori Protocol
Data Sources	Multiple resources, including published and grey literature, of any study type	Multiple resources, including published and grey literature, mostly randomized controlled trials
Eligibility Criteria	Clearly defined before the review is conducted Changes may be necessary throughout the review	Clearly defined before the review is conducted
Critical Appraisal/ Risk of Bias Assessment	No, not normally done	Yes, to inform recommendations development to guide decision making on a policy or practice
Data Synthesis	Not doing a meta-analysis or meta-synthesis Mostly qualitative analysis	Qualitative, quantitative, may include meta-analysis

The table below highlights key similarities between the two evidence synthesis methods.

Criteria	Scoping Review	Systematic Review
Searches	Comprehensive Explicit, Reproducible, and Transparent search strategy
Screening	2 stages of screening: Title-and-Abstract screening followed by Full-text screening Screening of results based on the defined eligibility criteria
Data Reporting	Clear and Rigorous Report the decisions about the inclusion and exclusion of sources using a flow diagram

Source:

Mellor. L. (n.d.). The difference between a systematic review & scoping review. Covidence. https://www.covidence.org/blog/the-difference-between-a-systematic-review-and-a-scoping-review/

Mellor. L. (n.d.). How to get started with a scoping review. Covidence. https://www.covidence.org/blog/how-to-get-started-with-a-scoping-review/

Formulate Research Question Using PCC

The PCC (Population (or participants)/Concept/Context) framework is recommended by JBI to develop your review title, question and inclusion criteria. A well-formulated question is also helpful when designing your search strategy to search the literature for evidence that will support the question.

** It is recommended that the title should always include the phrase “…: a scoping review” to allow easy identification of the type of document it represents. **

Example
Primary review question: “What quality of life questionnaires are available for pediatric patients following tonsillectomies with or without adenoidectomies for chronic infections or sleep disordered breathing?”

PCC element	Definition (per JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis 10.2.4)	Inclusion Criteria in the Example Question	Sub-questions/ Further Elements for Potential Particular Issues
Population/ Participants	Important characteristics of participants, including age and other qualifying criteria	Pediatric patients who have had tonsillectomies with or without adenoidectomies	Ages of the pediatric patients
Concept	Details that pertain to elements that would be detailed in a standard systematic review, such as the “interventions”, and/ or “phenomena of interest”, and/or “outcomes”	The questionnaires used to assess quality of life for pediatric patients after a tonsillectomy performed for the purposes of treating either chronic infection or sleep disordered breathing	Generic questionnaires Disease-specific questionnaires Format (e.g. paper or web-based), contents (i.e. assessment domains), validity and reliability of the included instruments
Context	Details about the specific setting; specific social, cultural, or gender-based interests	Not explicit context	Geographical (i.e. countries) Clinical (i.e. primary health care, acute care, specialist psychological care, counselling)

Source:

Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis - 10.2.2 Developing the title and question. JBI; 2024. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01

Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis - 10.2.4 Inclusion criteria. JBI; 2024. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01

Kao, S. S., Peters, M. D. J., & Ooi, E. H. (2017). Pediatric tonsillectomy quality of life assessment instruments: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 15(5), 1222-1227. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003131

Guidelines and Standards

JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Chapter 10: Scoping reviews
JBI Manual provides step-by-step methodological guidance for evidence synthesis, including a scoping review chapter.
PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)
An extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guidelines) statement provides guidance on how scoping reviews should be reported.