Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

This paper focuses on scoping studies, an approach to reviewing the literature which to date has received little attention in the research methods literature. We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems. Where appropriate, our approach to scoping the field is contrasted with the procedures followed in systematic reviews. We emphasize how including a consultation exercise in this sort of study may enhance the results, making them more useful to policy makers, practitioners and service users. Finally, we consider the advantages and limitations of the approach and suggest that a wider debate is called for about the role of the scoping study in relation to other types of literature reviews

Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews.

This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews

The role of scoping reviews in guideline development.

Systematic reviews have long been seen as critical in the development of trustworthy guidelines. However, as newer synthesis methodologies such as scoping reviews become more common, there is a need to discuss the potential role of these methodologies within guideline development. This article aims to summarize and provide examples of the role of scoping reviews in guideline development. Drawing on the expertise of the JBI scoping review group and guideline developers, this discussion article summarizes five key roles of scoping reviews in guideline development. Guideline developers can consider using scoping reviews when they need to: 1) know what existing guidelines could be adopted, adapted or adoloped; 2) understand the breadth of evidence that exists on a particular issue and help with the development and prioritization of questions, or identify previous systematic reviews; 3) identify contextual factors and information relevant for a clinical practice recommendation; 4) identify potential strategies for implementation and monitoring and; 5) conduct evidence surveillance and living mapping approaches. Scoping reviews conducted and reported according to best-practice guidelines and standards can be used in conjunction with systematic reviews to support the work of guideline developers usefully

Undertaking a scoping review: a practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

Aim: The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best-practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research. Design: Discussion Paper. Data Sources: Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR). Implications for nursing and midwifery: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency. Conclusion: This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. Impact: With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects

Background There is an expectation for stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) to be involved in research. Researchers are increasingly recognising that it is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. There is currently a lack of evidence about (A) how to do this and (B) the effects, or impact, of such involvement. We aim to create a map of the evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and use this evidence to address the two points above. Methods We will complete a mixed-method synthesis of the evidence, first completing a scoping review to create a broad map of evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and secondly completing two contingent syntheses. We will use a stepwise approach to searching; the initial step will include comprehensive searches of electronic databases, including CENTRAL, AMED, Embase, Medline, Cinahl and other databases, supplemented with pre-defined hand-searching and contacting authors. Two reviewers will undertake each review task (i.e., screening, data extraction) using standard systematic review processes. For the scoping review, we will include any paper, regardless of publication status or study design, which investigates, reports or discusses involvement in a systematic review. Included papers will be summarised within structured tables. Criteria for judging the focus and comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement will be applied, informing which papers are included within the two contingent syntheses. Synthesis A will detail the methods that have been used to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. Papers from the scoping review that are judged to provide an adequate description of methods or approaches will be included. Details of the methods of involvement will be extracted from included papers using pre-defined headings, presented in tables and described narratively. Synthesis B will include studies that explore the effect of stakeholder involvement on the quality, relevance or impact of a systematic review, as identified from the scoping review. Study quality will be appraised, data extracted and synthesised within tables. Discussion This review should help researchers select, improve and evaluate methods of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. Review findings will contribute to Cochrane training resources

Determinants of Green Purchasing Behavior : A Scoping Review

The purpose of writing this article is to provide an understanding of the theory applied to green purchasing behavior. This study uses the scoping review method of compiling articles using discourse identification from various sources of descriptive analysis in the reviews related to green purchasing behavior. This scoping review has 6 stages where the last stage is optional. Scoping reviews need to be carried out in a study, but due to the lack of references related to the preparation of scoping reviews, many researchers do not understand how to prepare a scoping review that can help finding research novelty and research positions. The results of this study indicate that most studies identify green purchasing behavior tend to be organic product not only through attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control, but several other determinants can be studied or re-examined to identify the determinants of green purchasing behavior. The Theory of Planned Behavior has become a grand theory in several articles related to green purchasing behavior. Keywords: scoping review, green behavior, green purchasing behavior, theory of planned behavior, consumer behavio

Realist Review: Current Practice and Future Prospects

Realist review has emerged as a specific literature review approach that is concerned with explaining the outcomes of complex intervention programs. We undertook a systematic scoping review to examine the current practice of realist review. A systematic scoping review is a process of mapping the existing evidence base on a particular topic. We identified a growing body of literature using the realist review approach. We selected 54 reviews for our study. These reviews covered a range of topics, including health care, education, management, and public safety. We found that the initial process of exploratory scoping of the literature was described in only 58 per cent of the reviews. The approaches regarding appraisal, analysis, and synthesis of the selected studies were poorly described in most reviews. Overall, there was little uniformity and transparency regarding many methodological issues. Specific methodological guidance may need to be developed if realist reviews are to have a more uniform and transparent approach

Enhancing the role of academic librarians in conducting scoping reviews

Information exposing, in conjunction with technological innovations and the emergence of social media, altered the traditional roles of academic libraries and enabled librarians to become necessary partners in research. The role of academic librarians in conducting systematic reviews is well recognised, however, their role in conducting scoping reviews is not yet well established. Nevertheless, we propose that, in more and more frequent situations when it is not feasible to read and analyse all relevant literature to be scoped manually, librarians employ bibliometric analysis and mapping to visualise and chart literature content. Our study demonstrated that science landscapes induced automatically by bibliometric mapping software could serve as a tool to visualise and chart the content of relevant literature when conducting the fourth step of scoping reviews. Additionaly science landscapes can help also serve to help improve the decision strategies when conducting scoping reviews

Scoping Meta-Review: Introducing a New Methodology

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. For researchers, policymakers, and practitioners facing a new field, undertaking a systematic review can typically present a challenge due to the enormous number of relevant papers. A scoping review is a method suggested for addressing this dilemma; however, scoping reviews present their own challenges. This paper introduces the "scoping meta-review" (SMR) for expanding current methodologies and is based on our experiences in mapping the field of consumer engagement in healthcare. During this process, we developed the novel SMR method. An SMR combines aspects of a scoping review and a meta-review to establish an evidence-based map of a field. Similar to a scoping review, an SMR offers a practical and flexible methodology. However, unlike in a traditional scoping review, only systematic reviews are included. Stages of the SMR include: undertaking a preliminary nonsystematic review; building a search strategy; interrogating academic literature databases; classifying and excluding studies based on titles and abstracts; saving the refined database of references; revising the search strategy; selecting and reviewing the full text papers; and thematically analyzing the selected texts and writing the report. The main benefit of an SMR is to map a new field based on high-level evidence provided by systematic reviews

Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews.

In scoping reviews, boundaries of relevant evidence may be initially fuzzy, with refined conceptual understanding of interventions and their proposed mechanisms of action an intended output of the scoping process rather than its starting point. Electronic searches are therefore sensitive, often retrieving very large record sets that are impractical to screen in their entirety. This paper describes methods for applying and evaluating the use of text mining (TM) technologies to reduce impractical screening workload in reviews, using examples of two extremely large-scale scoping reviews of public health evidence (choice architecture (CA) and economic environment (EE)). Electronic searches retrieved >800,000 (CA) and >1 million (EE) records. TM technologies were used to prioritise records for manual screening. TM performance was measured prospectively. TM reduced manual screening workload by 90% (CA) and 88% (EE) compared with conventional screening (absolute reductions of ≈430 000 (CA) and ≈378 000 (EE) records). This study expands an emerging corpus of empirical evidence for the use of TM to expedite study selection in reviews. By reducing screening workload to manageable levels, TM made it possible to assemble and configure large, complex evidence bases that crossed research discipline boundaries. These methods are transferable to other scoping and systematic reviews incorporating conceptual development or explanatory dimensions