Cássia Baldini Soares

Bio: Cássia Baldini Soares is an academic researcher from University of São Paulo. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Health policy. The author has an hindex of 21, co-authored 157 publications receiving 4611 citations. Previous affiliations of Cássia Baldini Soares include The Joanna Briggs Institute.

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Abstract: Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. 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 amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. 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, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews

Abstract: Objective Scoping reviews are used to assess the extent of a body of literature on a particular topic, and often to ensure that further research in that area is a beneficial addition to world knowledge. The aim of this paper reports upon the development of a methodology for scoping reviews based upon the Arksey and O'Malley framework, the Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien, and the Joanna Briggs Institute methods of evidence synthesis. Methods A working group consisting of members of the Joanna Briggs collaborating organizations met to discuss the proposed framework for the methodology and develop a draft for the scoping review methodology based on the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the work of Levac et al. This was followed by a workshop attended by other members of the organizations consisting of 30 international researchers to discuss the proposed methodology. Further refinement of the methodology was undertaken as a result of the feedback received from the workshop. Results The development of the methodology focused on five stages of the protocol and review development. These were identifying the research question by clarifying and linking the purpose and research question, identifying the relevant studies using a three-step literature search in order to balance feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness, careful selection of the studies to using a team approach, charting the data and collating the results to identify the implications of the study findings for policy, practice, or research. Linking Evidence to Action The current methodology recommends including both quantitative and qualitative research, as well as evidence from economic and expert opinion sources to answer questions of effectiveness, appropriateness, meaningfulness and feasibility of health practices and delivery methods. The proposed framework has the potential to provide options when faced with complex concepts or broad research questions.

Integrative Review: Concepts And Methods Used In Nursing

Abstract: Integrative review (IR) has an international reputation in nursing research and evidence-based practice. This IR aimed at identifying and analyzing the concepts and methods recommended to undertaking IR in nursing. Nine information resources,including electronic databases and grey literature were searched. Seventeen studies were included. The results indicate that: primary studies were mostly from USA; it is possible to have several research questions or hypotheses and include primary studies in the review from different theoretical and methodological approaches; it is a type of review that can go beyond the analysis and synthesis of findings from primary studies allowing exploiting other research dimensions, and that presents potentialities for the development of new theories and new problems for research. Conclusion: IR is understood as a very complex type of review and it is expected to be developed using standardized and systematic methods to ensure the required rigor of scientific research and therefore the legitimacy of the established evidence.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Abstract: Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Abstract: Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. 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. 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. 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. Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. 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. 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.

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Abstract: Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. 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 amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. 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, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.