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.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

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.

/pdf/prisma-extension-for-scoping-reviews-prisma-scr-checklist-53qupltibg.pdf

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

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.

/pdf/systematic-review-or-scoping-review-guidance-for-authors-21ouh48v3u.pdf

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

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.

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR). INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources, such as policy. In this manner, scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence. The increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of a reporting guideline: the PRISMA-ScR. In 2014, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing and substantial developments in approaches to scoping review conduct and reporting. As such, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align with the current state of knowledge and reporting standards in evidence synthesis. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2020, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group expanded its membership; extensively reviewed the literature; engaged via annual face-to-face meetings, regular teleconferences, and email correspondence; sought advice from methodological experts; facilitated workshops; and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to updated guidance for scoping reviews published in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The updated chapter was endorsed by JBI's International Scientific Committee in 2020. RESULTS: The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews includes additional guidance on several methodological issues, such as when a scoping review is (or is not) appropriate, and how to extract, analyze, and present results, and provides clarification for implications for practice and research. Furthermore, it is aligned with the PRISMA-ScR to ensure consistent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The latest JBI guidance for scoping reviews provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review. Furthermore, it aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review. A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned.

Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.

Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews

The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews

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.

Patricia McInerney

Papers

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.

Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews

The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews

An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews