Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Debate

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

Authors: Zachary Munn, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur, Edoardo Aromataris

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.
Literature
1.
Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.CrossRef
2.
Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):12–37.CrossRef
3.
Jordan Z, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Lockwood C. Now that we're here, where are we? The JBI approach to evidence-based healthcare 20 years on. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):117–20.CrossRef
4.
Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5.CrossRef
5.
Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef
6.
Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.CrossRef
7.
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):1.CrossRef
8.
Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4.CrossRef
9.
Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.CrossRef
10.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15.CrossRef
11.
Pearson A. Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Reports. 2004;2:45–64.CrossRef
12.
Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. AJN The American Journal of Nursing. 2014;114(3):53–8.CrossRef
13.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2009;339:b2700.CrossRef
14.
Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. ed: The Cochrane Collaboration 2011.
15.
Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, Pearson A. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:108.CrossRef
16.
Pearson A, Jordan Z, Munn Z. Translational science and evidence-based healthcare: a clarification and reconceptualization of how knowledge is generated and used in healthcare. Nursing research and practice. 2012;2012:792519.CrossRef
17.
Steinberg E, Greenfield S, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Graham R. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
18.
Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1:28.CrossRef
19.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.CrossRef
20.
Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Moher D. The art and science of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):11–20.CrossRef
21.
Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E. ‘Scoping the scope’ of a cochrane review. J Public Health. 2011;33(1):147–50.CrossRef
22.
Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S, Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008;6(1):1.CrossRef
23.
Pearson A, Wiechula R, Court A, Lockwood C. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2005;3(8):207–15.PubMed
24.
Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, Tavender E, Collie A, Gruen RL. The global evidence mapping initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:92.CrossRef
25.
Chambers D, Wilson PM, Thompson CA, Hanbury A, Farley K, Light K. Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: a systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources. Milbank Q. 2011;89(1):131–56.CrossRef
26.
Challen K, Lee AC, Booth A, Gardois P, Woods HB, Goodacre SW. Where is the evidence for emergency planning: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:542.CrossRef
27.
Schaink AK, Kuluski K, Lyons RF, et al. A scoping review and thematic classification of patient complexity: offering a unifying framework. Journal of comorbidity. 2012;2(1):1–9.CrossRef
28.
Hines D, Modi N, Lee SK, Isayama T, Sjörs G, Gagliardi L, Lehtonen L, Vento M, Kusuda S, Bassler D, Mori R. Scoping review shows wide variation in the definitions of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants and calls for a consensus. Acta Paediatr. 2017;106(3):366–74.CrossRef
29.
Callary SA, Solomon LB, Holubowycz OT, Campbell DG, Munn Z, Howie DW. Wear of highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(2):159–68.CrossRef
30.
Davy C, Harfield S, McArthur A, Munn Z, Brown A. Access to primary health care services for indigenous peoples: a framework synthesis. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15(1):163.CrossRef
31.
Harfield S, Davy C, Kite E, et al. Characteristics of indigenous primary health care models of service delivery: a scoping review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13(11):43–51.CrossRef
32.
Harfield SG, Davy C, McArthur A, Munn Z, Brown A, Brown N. Characteristics of indigenous primary health care service delivery models: a systematic scoping review. Glob Health. 2018;14(1):12.CrossRef
33.
Peters MDJ LC, Munn Z, Moola S, Mishra RK (2015) , Protocol. Adelaide: the Joanna Briggs Institute UoA. What are people’s views and experiences of delivering and participating in microfinance interventions? A systematic review of qualitative evidence from South Asia.
34.
Peters MDJ LC, Munn Z, Moola S, Mishra RK People’s views and experiences of participating in microfinance interventions: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. London: EPPI-Centre: social science research unit, UCL Institute of education, University College London; 2016.
35.
Wagman P, Håkansson C, Jonsson H. Occupational balance: a scoping review of current research and identified knowledge gaps. J Occup Sci. 2015;22(2):160–9.CrossRef
36.
Peters MD. In no uncertain terms: the importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(2):1–4.CrossRef
37.
Hetrick SE, Parker AG, Callahan P, Purcell R. Evidence mapping: illustrating an emerging methodology to improve evidence-based practice in youth mental health. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(6):1025–30.CrossRef
38.
Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic reviews. 2016;5(1):1.CrossRef
39.
40.
Gibson CH. A concept analysis of empowerment. J Adv Nurs. 1991;16(3):354–61.CrossRef
41.
Meeberg GA. Quality of life: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 1993;18(1):32–8.CrossRef
42.
Ream E, Richardson A. Fatigue: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 1996;33(5):519–29.CrossRef
43.
Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224.CrossRef
44.
Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.CrossRef
45.
Harker J, Kleijnen J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10(4):397–410.CrossRef
46.
Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.CrossRef
47.
Munn Z, Lockwood C, Moola S. The development and use of evidence summaries for point of care information systems: a streamlined rapid review approach. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2015;12(3):131–8.CrossRef
48.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRef
49.
Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, Stern C, Porritt K, Farrow J, Lockwood C, Stephenson M, Moola S, Lizarondo L, McArthur A. The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs institute system for the unified management, assessment and review of information (JBI SUMARI). Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2018. (in press)
50.
Stern C, Munn Z, Porritt K, et al. An international educational training course for conducting systematic reviews in health care: the Joanna Briggs Institute's comprehensive systematic review training program. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2018;15(5):401–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach
Authors
Zachary Munn
Micah D. J. Peters
Cindy Stern
Catalin Tufanaru
Alexa McArthur
Edoardo Aromataris
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Estimating causal effects of time-dependent exposures on a binary endpoint in a high-dimensional setting

Research article

The impact of status and social context on health service co-design: an example from a collaborative improvement initiative in UK primary care

Research article

Reference effect measures for quantifying, comparing and visualizing variation from random and fixed effects in non-normal multilevel models, with applications to site variation in medical procedure use and outcomes

Research article

Methods for evaluating adverse drug event preventability in emergency department patients

Research article

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review of model-based analyses

Research article

Norm values and psychometric properties of the brief symptom inventory-18 regarding individuals between the ages of 60 and 95