DEFINITION
According to Tricco et al. (2016) a scoping review are a method of
knowledge synthesis that identify trends and gaps within an existent
knowledge base, or scope of knowledge, for the purpose of informing
research, policy, and practice.
Scoping reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis, which incorporate
a range of study designs to comprehensively summarize and
synthesize evidence with the aim of informing practice, programs, and
policy and providing direction to future research priorities. The general
purpose for conducting scoping reviews is to identify and map the
available evidence. (LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: Scoping Reviews,
2024)
To assist authors through the scoping review process, the Arksey and
O’Malley Framework proposed six stages of conduct. (Westphaln et al.,
2021)
1) Specify the research question
2) Identify relevant literature
3) Select studies
4) Map out the data
5) Summarize, synthesize, and report the results
6) Include expert consultation.
RELEVANCE
1. To examine the extent, range and nature of research activity
2. To determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review
3. To summarize and disseminate research findings
4. To identify research gaps in the existing literature
APPLICATION
Scoping reviews are increasingly recognized as valuable tools in
evidence-based practice, particularly in healthcare, education, and
social sciences (Grant & Booth, 2009).
Scoping reviews are useful for informing policy development and
decision-making by synthesizing evidence from diverse sources
(Colquhoun et al., 2014).
They can be used to identify areas for future research and prioritize
research agendas by highlighting knowledge gaps and areas with
conflicting evidence (Peters et al., 2015).
STRENGTH ( Advantages)
A scoping review produces a synthesis of an existing and evolving body
of literature to determine gaps in the literature and identify areas for
future empirical work
Scoping reviews allow the inclusion of different types of literature.
It has the existence of multiple methodological frameworks that have
evolved from and expanded upon Arksey and O’Malley’s seminal paper
on scoping reviews.
Scoping reviews do include original studies that yield empirical
evidence, they may also include grey literature such as dissertations,
papers in practice journals, editorials, position statements, and
websites (Maggio et al., 2020).
WEAKNESSES ( Disadvantage)
• Selecting terms for a comprehensive search strategy, especially
when the literature is emerging and less well-known.
• Some topics are ill-defined, which can lead to different terms and
definitions for the same topic.
• Scoping reviews are also resource intensive
• Possible misconceptions related to the purpose, scope, and rigor
of scoping reviews.
CHALLENGES
Mak and Thomas (2022) reveals that scoping review often requires the
teams to spend much time reflecting, communicating, and iteratively
reviewing the data to ensure the process is rigorous and that the
results will make a meaningful contribution to our knowledge of the
topic.
Lack of people trained in scoping reviews.
Difficulties with knowing what data to extract and how to analyze the
results.
Misconception of scope and function and lack of editor ,peer reviewer
and author understanding of scoping reviews.
CONSIDERATION
A balance between breadth and depth:
Evidence quality assessment
Consultation with experts or key informants
Standardization of the process and report:
REFERENCES
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M.,
Levac, D., Ng, C., Sharpe, J. P., Wilson, K., Kenny, M., Warren, R., Wilson,
C., Stelfox, H. T., & Straus, S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the
conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
Westphaln, K. K., Regoeczi, W., Masotya, M., Vazquez-Westphaln, B.,
Lounsbury, K., McDavid, L., Lee, H., Johnson, J., & Ronis, S. D. (2021).
From Arksey and O’Malley and Beyond: Customizations to enhance a
team-based, mixed approach to scoping review methodology.
MethodsX, 8, 101375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101375
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of
14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information &
Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a
methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Colquhoun, H. L., et al. (2014). Scoping reviews: time for clarity in
definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
67(12), 1291-1294.
Mak, S., & Thomas, A. (2022). An introduction to scoping reviews.
Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(5), 561–564.
https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-22-00620.1
Khalil, H., Peters, M. D., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Alexander, L.,
McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Munn, Z. (2021). Conducting high
quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 130, 156–160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.009
Peters, M. D., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander,
L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated
methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI
Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-
20-00167
Maggio, L. A., Larsen, K., Thomas, A., Costello, J. A., & Artino, A. R.
(2020). Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.
Medical Education, 55(6), 689–700.
https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14431
Verdejo, C., Tapia-Benavente, L., Schuller-Martínez, B., Vergara-Merino,
L., Vargas-Peirano, M., & Silva-Dreyer, A. M. (2021). What you need to
know about scoping reviews. Medwave, 21(02), e8144.
https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2021.02.8144
LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: Scoping reviews. (2024).
https://med.cornell.libguides.com/systematicreviews/scopingreview.
