Library Guides: Scoping Reviews for Health Sciences and Medicine: Preliminary work

Preliminary work

Assembling your team

The optimal team size for a scoping review can vary based on several factors:

the scope and complexity of the review
the available time and resources
the expertise of team members.

Scoping reviews are not generally conducted by a single reviewer as at least two reviewers are required for the screening and assessment of identified studies.

Tools

JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews
Chapter 11 of this resource describes the characteristics of Scoping Reviews and the steps required to undertake a review of this type.

The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews - includes tip sheets 1 - 22

Covidence is a web-based tool that can simplify the processes of systematic and scoping reviews. It is designed to easily import citations ready for title and abstract and full text screening. Covidence includes tools for risk of bias tables, data extraction and exporting. University of Melbourne staff and students have access to Covidence.

RevMan facilitates preparation of protocols and full reviews, including text, characteristics of studies, comparison tables, and study data. It can perform meta-analysis of the data entered, and present results graphically. University of Melbourne staff and students have access to RevMan.

Endnote is subscription-based software designed to facilitate the organisation and management of references. It can be effectively used in both the screening process or as a tool for storing and exporting records from database searches into alternative platforms such as Covidence. University of Melbourne staff and students have access to Endnote.

Zotero is free and open source reference management software with similar capabilities to Endnote

Polyglot Search
Polyglot is a search translation tool that automatically translates your search from PubMed to other databases such as Scopus or CINAHL. The tool can translate the search syntax but is unable to translate subject headings which has to be completed manually. Polyglot is a part of the Systematic Review Accelerator tool mentioned below.

Other tools to explore

Systematic Review Accelerator
The Systematic Review Accelerator is a suite of automation tools built to make conducting all types of evidence reviews or synthesis easier and faster. As each tool is designed to help with a specific review task, people can use as many or as few as they like.

Systematic Review Toolbox
The Systematic Review Toolbox is an online catalogue of tools that support various tasks within the systematic review and wider evidence synthesis process.

Framing your question

As with any type of literature review, the first step is to formulate the research question as this will help guide the development of your search strategy. Scoping review research questions are generally broad in nature as the focus is on summarising the breadth of the evidence. This may include defining the concept, target population and health outcomes of interest to clarify the focus of the scoping study and establish an effective search strategy. (Levac et al, 2010).

Main points:

Think about the objective of the review, this will assist with defining the research question.
Scoping Review questions are generally broad to allow a researcher to identify the current state of the literature on a given topic.
Although the focus of scoping reviews is often broad, a clearly constructed question is still necessary.
The scoping review question guides and directs the development of the specific eligibility criteria for the scoping review
Consider consulting a topic expert to ensure the objective and review question are relevant within the field.

Research Question Frameworks - Mnemonics

A range of research question frameworks or 'mnemonics' have been created for different types of reviews or research questions. The PCC mnemonic is recommended by JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis for use in scoping reviews.

PCC - Population - Concept - Context

JBI suggests that "there is no need for explicit outcomes, interventions or phenomena of interest to be stated for a scoping review; however elements of each of these may be implicit in the concept under examination" (JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020).

The PCC framework can help develop the search strategy as well as eligibility criteria or inclusion/exclusion criteria which is discussed in the next tab.

PCC

Population - Participants	What is the population of interest including any important characteristics? Important characteristics of participants should be detailed, including age and other qualifying criteria that make them appropriate for the objectives of the scoping review and for the review question. In some circumstances, participants per se are not a relevant inclusion criterion. For example, for a scoping review that is focused upon mapping the types and details of research designs that have been used in a particular field, it may not be useful or within scope to detail the types of participants involved in that research. Example: Elderly patients
Concept	What is the concept being examined? The core concept examined by the scoping review should be clearly articulated to guide the scope and breadth of the inquiry. This may include details that pertain to elements that would be detailed in a standard systematic review, such as the “interventions”, and/ or “phenomena of interest”, and/or “outcomes” (as relevant for the particular scoping review). Example: Telehealth or telemedicine services
Context	Context can vary. Consider specific settings or factors such as geographic locations. The 'Context' element of a scoping review will vary depending on the objective/s and question/s of the review. The context should be clearly defined and may include, but is not limited to, consideration of cultural factors, such as geographic location and/or specific setting (such as acute care, primary health care or the community). Reviewers may choose to limit the context of their review to a particular country or health system or healthcare setting depending of the topic and objectives. Example: Covid-19 Pandemic

Population - Participants

What is the population of interest including any important characteristics?

Important characteristics of participants should be detailed, including age and other qualifying criteria that make them appropriate for the objectives of the scoping review and for the review question.

In some circumstances, participants per se are not a relevant inclusion criterion. For example, for a scoping review that is focused upon mapping the types and details of research designs that have been used in a particular field, it may not be useful or within scope to detail the types of participants involved in that research.

Example: Elderly patients

Concept

What is the concept being examined?

The core concept examined by the scoping review should be clearly articulated to guide the scope and breadth of the inquiry. This may include details that pertain to elements that would be detailed in a standard systematic review, such as the “interventions”, and/ or “phenomena of interest”, and/or “outcomes” (as relevant for the particular scoping review).

Example: Telehealth or telemedicine services

Context

Context can vary. Consider specific settings or factors such as geographic locations.

The 'Context' element of a scoping review will vary depending on the objective/s and question/s of the review. The context should be clearly defined and may include, but is not limited to, consideration of cultural factors, such as geographic location and/or specific setting (such as acute care, primary health care or the community).

Reviewers may choose to limit the context of their review to a particular country or health system or healthcare setting depending of the topic and objectives.

Example: Covid-19 Pandemic

Source: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Chapter 11.2.4

References

Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. Available from. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01 Full Text

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation science, 5, 1-9. Full Text

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion/Exclusion criteria (or eligibility criteria) are generally predetermined before undertaking a review and should be directly linked to the research objectives and questions. However, due to the iterative nature of a scoping review these criteria might not be apparent until some preliminary searching and evaluation of the results has been conducted and therefore the criteria remains subject to potential revision during the review process.

Scoping Review Inclusion/Exclusion criteria can generally be more broad than that of a Systematic Review and the PCC framework can assist with defining them.

Resources:

PRISMA ScR - Eligibility Criteria - Tip Sheet PDF

JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Reviews: Inclusion Criteria Full Text

Establishing Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for your Scoping Review - University of South Australia (YouTube - 8:10)