Librarian for the College of Nursing & Health Sciences
Head of Collections & Technical Services
Hugh & Hazel Darling Library #210
701 E. Foothill Blvd., PO Box 7000
Azusa, CA 91702
What Review is Right for You?
Not sure if you should conduct a scoping review, systematic review, rapid review, or something else? The "Right Review" is a simple form that asks questions about your project and can help guide you to the best type of review for your topic.
Types of Reviews
Definition: Scope reviews are often used to categorize or group existing literature in a given field based on its nature, features, and volume.
When to use: They are typically used for broad questions and can help identify and map the available evidence. A meta-analysis is not usually part of a scoping review. Label the body of literature with relevance to time, location (e.g. country or context), source (e.g. peer-reviewed or grey literature), and origin (e.g. healthcare discipline or academic field) It also is used to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field or to identify gaps in existing literature/research
You may choose to conduct a Scoping Review:
- To identify the types of available evidence in a given field
- To clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature
- To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic or field
- To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept
- As a precursor to a systematic review (results from the scoping review can help create a more focused question suitable for a systematic review)
- To identify and analyze knowledge gaps (Munn et al, 2018)
Researchers should familiarize themselves with the PRISMA-ScR checklist (an adapted version by JBI of the checklist formatted for PRISMA 2020) when conceptualizing the scoping review project.
Limitations: More citations to screen and takes as long or longer than a systematic review. Larger teams may be required because of the larger volumes of literature. Different screening criteria and process than a systematic review
Resources:
Definition: A systematic review is a summary of research results (evidence) that uses explicit and reproducible methods to systematically search, critically appraise, and synthesize on a specific issue. It synthesizes the results of multiple primary studies related to each other by using strategies that reduce biases and errors.
When to use: If you want to identify, appraise, and synthesize all available research that is relevant to a particular question with reproducible search methods.
You may choose to conduct a systematic review
- To uncover the international evidence
- To confirm current practice/ address any variation/ identify new practices
- To identify and inform areas for future research
- To identify and investigate conflicting results
-
To produce statements to guide decision-making (Munn et al, 2018)
Limitations: It requires extensive time and a team
Resources:
- Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare
- The 8 stages of a systematic review
- Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address
- Reporting the review
Synthesizing the results of single studies and establishing overall findings for the question of interest from the larger body of evidence enables decision-makers to be more confident in the findings. Examples of significant shifts in best practice following the completion of a systematic review include the practice of giving live-saving corticosteroid injections to pregnant women at risk of giving birth prematurely (see the story of the Cochrane logo) and advice about sleeping positions for babies was contrary to the evidence for many years.
Cochrane is considered one of the most eminent publishers of systematic reviews, along with its sister organization the Campbell Collaboration, and the Joanna Briggs Institute.
Other Resources:
Differences Between Scoping & Systematic Reviews
How is a Scoping Review Different then a Systematic Review?
- Scoping reviews share a number of the same processes as systematic reviews, as they both use rigorous and transparent methods to comprehensively identify and analyze all the relevant literature pertaining to a research question.
- The key differences between the two review methods can be attributed to their differing purposes and aims. The purpose of a scoping review is to map the body of literature on a topic area. The purpose of a systematic review is to synthesize the best available research on a specific intervention.
- Scoping reviews identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept. They do not produce statements to guide decision-making.
- A scoping review seeks to present an overview of a potentially large and diverse body of literature pertaining to a broad topic. A systematic review attempts to collate empirical evidence from a relatively smaller number of studies pertaining to a focused research question.
- Scoping reviews aim to provide a descriptive overview of the reviewed material without critically appraising individual studies or synthesizing evidence from different studies (no risk of bias or meta-analysis/statistical pooling is performed). In contrast, systematic reviews aim to provide a synthesis of evidence from studies assessed for risk of bias.
Adapted from: 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 Dec;5(4):371–85.
Review Typologies (from LITR-EX)
This site explores different review methodologies such as, systematic, scoping, realist, narrative, state of the art, meta-ethnography, critical, and integrative reviews. The LITR-EX site has a health professions education focus, but the advice and information is widely applicable.
- Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
| Scoping Reviews | Systematic Reviews | |
| Purpose & Aim | Map the body of literature on a topic area | Synthesize the best available research on a specific intervention |
| Review Question | Broad overview of topic | Focused clinical question/hypothesis |
| Protocol Registration Site | Open Science Framework (OSF); Cannot register in PROSPERO | PROSPERO |
| Typical question outline format | PCC | PICO |
| Explicit, transparent search strategy | Yes | Yes |
| Standardized data extraction forms | Yes | Yes |
| Mandatory critical appraisal of included studies (risk of bias assessment) | No | Yes |
| Synthesis of findings from individual studies and generation of summary findings | No | Yes |
| Grey & Non-Peer Reviewed Literature Search | Yes | No |
| Research studies only - qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, etc. | No; All types of articles can be included. | Yes |
| Example Question | What research is available about non-pharmaceutical treatments to treat ADHD? | Is cognitive behavior therapy an effective treatment for ADHD in young adults? |
Source: JBI Manual: Table 11.1 (Modified)
Project Steps
- Develop a research question. PICO or other question-framing devices can be used to clarify your question.
- Define inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Locate studies
- Select studies for inclusion
- Assess quality of studies
- Extract data.
- Analyze and present results
- Interpret results
- Update the review as needed
*Note: These steps are derived from the NIH presentation "Undertaking a Systematic Review: What you Need to Know"
The steps below are based on Chapter 11 of the JBI Manual for Evidence synthesis.
- Complete pre-review tasks
- Develop the Protocol
- Conduct your Literature Search
- Manage your citations
- Screen your citations
- Extract & Chart Data from Included Studies
- Write up your Review
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Many journals endorse PRISMA and may require authors to use PRISMA when submitting systematic reviews for publication. In 2018 PRISMA published an extension specifically for Scoping Reviews.
- PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)
The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 22 items to report in your scoping review manuscript.
- PRISMA Flow Diagram
The PRISMA flow diagram shows a visual representation of the number of results retrieved in a search and when studies are excluded from analysis. The PRISMA flow diagram is typically used for systematic reviews, but can also be used with scoping reviews for the same purpose.
How can the library help?
The average review takes 1,168 hours to complete.
A librarian can help you speed up the process.
The methodology for scoping reviews is similar to systematic reviews. While there are some differences, they still require significant time and resources to complete. Scoping reviews follow established guidelines and best practices to produce high-quality research. Librarian involvement in scoping reviews is based on two levels. In Tier 1, the librarian will collaborate with researchers in a consultative manner. In Tier 2, the librarian will be an active member of your research team and co-author on your review. Roles and expectations of librarians vary based on the level of involvement desired. Examples of these differences are outlined in the table below.
| Role | Tasks | Tier 1: Consultative | Tier 2: Research Partner / Co-author |
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic Development | Guidance on process and steps | Yes | Yes |
| Background searching for past and upcoming reviews | Yes | Yes | |
| Development of Eligibility Criteria | Development and/or refinement of review topic | Yes | Yes |
| Assistance with refinement of PCC (population, comparator(s), and key questions) | Yes | Yes | |
| Guidance on study types to include | Yes | Yes | |
| Protocol Creation and Registration | Guidance on protocol registration | Yes | Yes |
| Draft the protocol for registration/publication (the Librarian must be first author on the protocol) | No | Yes | |
| Searching | Identification of databases for searches | Yes | Yes |
| Instruction in search techniques and methods | Yes | Yes | |
| Training in citation management software use for managing and sharing results | Yes | Yes | |
| Development and execution of searches | No | Yes | |
| Downloading search results to citation management software and removing duplicates | No | Yes | |
| Documentation of search strategies | No | Yes | |
| Management of search results | No | Yes | |
| Study Selection and Extraction (Charting) | Guidance on methods | Yes | Yes |
| Guidance on data extraction (charting), and management techniques and software | Yes | Yes | |
| Writing and Publishing | Suggestions of journals to target for publication | Yes | Yes |
| Drafting of literature search description in "Methods" section | No | Yes | |
| Creation of PRISMA diagram | No | Yes | |
| Drafting of literature search appendix | No | Yes | |
| Review other manuscript sections and final draft | No | Yes | |
| Librarian contributions warrant co-authorship | No | Yes |
The average review takes 1,168 hours to complete.
A librarian can help you speed up the process.
Systematic reviews follow established guidelines and best practices to produce high-quality research. Librarian involvement in systematic reviews is based on two levels. In Tier 1, the librarian will collaborate with researchers in a consultative manner. In Tier 2, the librarian will be an active member of your research team and co-author on your review. Roles and expectations of librarians vary based on the level of involvement desired. Examples of these differences are outlined in the table below.
| Role | Tasks | Tier 1: Consultative | Tier 2: Research Partner / Co-author |
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic Development | Guidance on process and steps | Yes | Yes |
| Background searching for past and upcoming reviews | Yes | Yes | |
| Development of Eligibility Criteria | Development and/or refinement of review topic | Yes | Yes |
| Assistance with refinement of PICO (population, intervention(s), comparator(s), and key questions) | Yes | Yes | |
| Guidance on study types to include | Yes | Yes | |
| Protocol Creation and Registration | Guidance on protocol registration | Yes | Yes |
| Draft the protocol for registration/publication (the Librarian must be the first author on the protocol) | No | Yes | |
| Searching | Identification of databases for searches | Yes | Yes |
| Instruction in search techniques and methods | Yes | Yes | |
| Training in citation management software use for managing and sharing results | Yes | Yes | |
| Development and execution of searches | No | Yes | |
| Downloading search results to citation management software and removing duplicates | No | Yes | |
| Documentation of search strategies | No | Yes | |
| Management of search results | No | Yes | |
| Study Selection and Extraction | Guidance on methods | Yes | Yes |
| Guidance on data extraction, and management techniques and software | Yes | Yes | |
| Writing and Publishing | Suggestions of journals to target for publication | Yes | Yes |
| Drafting of literature search description in "Methods" section | No | Yes | |
| Creation of PRISMA diagram | No | Yes | |
| Drafting of literature search appendix | No | Yes | |
| Review other manuscript sections and final draft | No | Yes | |
| Librarian contributions warrant co-authorship | No | Yes |
Publication - End Goals to think about
The publication component is where librarians can become useful again. A librarian can help you identify high-impact journals and help you consider the differences between open access and traditional publishing. In addition, the library has partnerships with publishers to allow authors from APU to publish open access with free or limited APC fees.
Do your research on the journal(s) you intend to submit to. Make sure you understand their audience, their scope and tone, and any standards or expectations they may have around systematic & scoping reviews.
Additional Publications
Think through how to maximize your publications with your work
- Published Systematic or Scoping Review
- Register the Protocol
- Published data & protocol
- Policy brief or white papers for an organization or popular or news rather than scholarly publication