-
This rapid growth in undertaking reviews of the literature has resulted in a plethora of terminology to describe approaches that, despite their different names, share certain essential characteristics, namely, collecting, evaluating and presenting the available research evidence. The following lists some of the labels in current usage: (full) system- atic review; meta-analysis; rapid review; (traditional) literature review; narrative review; research synthesis; and structured review.
Page 1
-
what might we consider to be the main differ- ences between a systematic review and a scoping study? First, a systematic review might typically focus on a well-defined question where appropriate study designs can be iden- tified in advance, whilst a scoping study tends to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable. Second, the systematic review aims to provide answers to questions from a relatively narrow range of quality assessed studies, whilst a scoping study is less likely to seek to address very specific research questions nor, consequently, to assess the quality of included studies.
Page 1
-
This paper attempts to address the current gap in knowledge about scoping studies. Where appro- priate, comparisons are made with systematic review methods. We provide a model for those wishing to scope the field of interest based on our experiences of scoping published and unpublished literature for a study of services to support carers for people with mental health problems.
Page 1
-
It is possible to identify at least four common reasons why a scoping study might be undertaken: 1. To examine the extent, range and nature of research activity: this type of rapid review might not describe research findings in any detail but is a useful way of mapping fields of study where it is difficult to visualize the range of material that might be available. 2. To determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review: in these cases a preliminary mapping of the literature might be undertaken to identify whether or not a full systematic review is feasible (does any literature exist?) or relevant (have systematic reviews already been conducted?) and the potential costs of conducting a full systematic review. 3. To summarize and disseminate research findings: this kind of scoping study might describe in more detail the findings and range of research in particular areas of study, thereby providing a mechanism for summarizing and disseminating research findings to policy makers, practitioners and consumers who might otherwise lack time or resources to undertake such work themselves (Antman, Lau, Kupeinick, Mosteller, & Chalmers, 1992). 4. To identify research gaps in the existing literature: this type of scoping study takes the process of dissemination one step further by drawing conclusions from existing literature regarding the overall state of research activity. Specifically designed to identify gaps in the evidence base where no research has been conducted, the study may also summarize and disseminate research findings as well as identify the rele- vance of full systematic review in specific areas of inquiry. However, it is important
Page 1
-
The second two types suggest that the scoping study might be conceived as a method in its own right—leading to the publication and dissemination of research findings in a particular field of enquiry.
Page 1
-
Our framework for conducting a scoping study is underpinned by the view upheld by proponents of systematic reviews that the methods used throughout the different stages are conducted in a rigorous and transparent way (CRD, 2001; Mays et al., 2001). The process should be documented in sufficient detail to enable the study to be replicated by others. This explicit approach increases the reliability of the findings, and responds to any suggestion that the study lacks methodological rigour (Mays et al., 2001)
Page 1
-
The method adopted for identifying literature in a scoping study needs to achieve in-depth and broad results. Rather than being guided by a highly focussed research question that lends itself to searching for particular study designs (as might be the case in a systematic review), the scoping study method is guided by a requirement to iden- tify all relevant literature regardless of study design. It is likely that as familiarity with the literature is increased, researchers will want to redefine search terms and undertake more sensitive searches of the literature. To this end, the researcher may not wish to place strict limitations on search terms, identification of relevant studies, or study selection at the outset. The process is not linear but iterative, requiring researchers to engage with each stage in a reflexive way and, where necessary, repeat steps to ensure that the literature is covered in a comprehensive way
This rapid growth in undertaking reviews of the literature has resulted in a plethora of terminology to describe approaches that, despite their different names, share certain essential characteristics, namely, collecting, evaluating and presenting the available research evidence. The following lists some of the labels in current usage: (full) system- atic review; meta-analysis; rapid review; (traditional) literature review; narrative review; research synthesis; and structured review.
what might we consider to be the main differ- ences between a systematic review and a scoping study? First, a systematic review might typically focus on a well-defined question where appropriate study designs can be iden- tified in advance, whilst a scoping study tends to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable. Second, the systematic review aims to provide answers to questions from a relatively narrow range of quality assessed studies, whilst a scoping study is less likely to seek to address very specific research questions nor, consequently, to assess the quality of included studies.
This paper attempts to address the current gap in knowledge about scoping studies. Where appro- priate, comparisons are made with systematic review methods. We provide a model for those wishing to scope the field of interest based on our experiences of scoping published and unpublished literature for a study of services to support carers for people with mental health problems.
It is possible to identify at least four common reasons why a scoping study might be undertaken: 1. To examine the extent, range and nature of research activity: this type of rapid review might not describe research findings in any detail but is a useful way of mapping fields of study where it is difficult to visualize the range of material that might be available. 2. To determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review: in these cases a preliminary mapping of the literature might be undertaken to identify whether or not a full systematic review is feasible (does any literature exist?) or relevant (have systematic reviews already been conducted?) and the potential costs of conducting a full systematic review. 3. To summarize and disseminate research findings: this kind of scoping study might describe in more detail the findings and range of research in particular areas of study, thereby providing a mechanism for summarizing and disseminating research findings to policy makers, practitioners and consumers who might otherwise lack time or resources to undertake such work themselves (Antman, Lau, Kupeinick, Mosteller, & Chalmers, 1992). 4. To identify research gaps in the existing literature: this type of scoping study takes the process of dissemination one step further by drawing conclusions from existing literature regarding the overall state of research activity. Specifically designed to identify gaps in the evidence base where no research has been conducted, the study may also summarize and disseminate research findings as well as identify the rele- vance of full systematic review in specific areas of inquiry. However, it is important
The second two types suggest that the scoping study might be conceived as a method in its own right—leading to the publication and dissemination of research findings in a particular field of enquiry.
Our framework for conducting a scoping study is underpinned by the view upheld by proponents of systematic reviews that the methods used throughout the different stages are conducted in a rigorous and transparent way (CRD, 2001; Mays et al., 2001). The process should be documented in sufficient detail to enable the study to be replicated by others. This explicit approach increases the reliability of the findings, and responds to any suggestion that the study lacks methodological rigour (Mays et al., 2001)
The method adopted for identifying literature in a scoping study needs to achieve in-depth and broad results. Rather than being guided by a highly focussed research question that lends itself to searching for particular study designs (as might be the case in a systematic review), the scoping study method is guided by a requirement to iden- tify all relevant literature regardless of study design. It is likely that as familiarity with the literature is increased, researchers will want to redefine search terms and undertake more sensitive searches of the literature. To this end, the researcher may not wish to place strict limitations on search terms, identification of relevant studies, or study selection at the outset. The process is not linear but iterative, requiring researchers to engage with each stage in a reflexive way and, where necessary, repeat steps to ensure that the literature is covered in a comprehensive way