Types of Reviews
Basic information and resources on the different types of literature reviews in research.
Basic Information about Scoping Reviews
Scoping Reviews can take 8-12 months and input from at least 3 team members are needed in various roles, including screening and extraction.
Scoping Reviews are useful for:
- examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and appropriately addressed by a more precise systematic review
- report on the types of evidence that address and inform practice in the field
- report on the way the research has been conducted
- an overview or map of the evidence
- (in broad topic areas)
Purposes for conducting 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
- To identify and analyze knowledge gaps
Other names for Scoping Reviews: Scoping Study, Systematic Scoping Review, Scoping Report, Scope of the Evidence, Rapid Scoping Review, Structured Literature Review, Scoping Project, Scoping Meta Review
- Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.Some information above from Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C. et al. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodology 18, 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
- Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different— the “Big Picture” review familyCampbell, F. (2023). Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): The same but different— the “Big picture” review family. Systematic Reviews, 12(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5
Review Steps
Note: this graphic only represents a general overview of the scoping review process.
For a conducting guideline/methodology, please consult the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews or the JBI Manual of Evidence Synthesis linked below.
- Scoping Review Step-by-Step ProcessDocument includes links for the graphic above.
Tools and References
Tools
Conducting Guidance
- JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis - Chapter 10: Scoping ReviewsThe primary conducting methodology guidance for scoping reviews.
Reporting Guidance
- PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)PRISMA ScR Checklist, Overview Video, Tip Sheets, and Explanatory Paper
PRISMA primarily focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating the effects of interventions, but can also be used as a basis for reporting reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (e.g. evaluating aetiology, prevalence, diagnosis or prognosis). - PRISMA Flow Diagram BuilderThis tool allows you to produce a flow diagram for your own review that conforms to the PRISMA2020 Statement.
- PRISMA for Searching (PRISMA-S)Checklist, Statement / Explanatory paper, and FAQ paper for guidance on reporting literature searching in systematic reviews and other forms of evidence / knowledge synthesis
Protocol Registration
- Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocolsPeters, Micah D.J.; Godfrey, Christina; McInerney, Patricia; Khalil, Hanan; Larsen, Palle; Marnie, Casey; Pollock, Danielle; Tricco, Andrea C.; Munn, Zachary. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis 20(4):p 953-968, April 2022. | DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242
- JBI Scoping Review Protocol TemplateClick to download JBI's Scoping Review Protocol template.
Note: template is designed for registration with JBI, but can be used for other registration platforms such as OSF - OSF - Open Science FrameworkRegistration tool for scientific data, projects, and protocols.
- Increasing the transparency of systematic reviews: presenting a generalized registration formvan den Akker, O. R., Peters, G. Y., Bakker, C. J., Carlsson, R., Coles, N. A., Corker, K. S., Feldman, G., Moreau, D., Nordström, T., Pickering, J. S., Riegelman, A., Topor, M. K., van Veggel, N., Yeung, S. K., Call, M., Mellor, D. T., & Pfeiffer, N. (2023). Increasing the transparency of systematic reviews: presenting a generalized registration form. Systematic reviews, 12(1), 170. https://doi-org.kumc.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02281-7
Additional Tools
- Addressing antiquated, non-standard, exclusionary, and potentially offensive terms in evidence syntheses and systematic searchesThis document provides suggested processes and wording for addressing the inclusion of antiquated, non-standard, exclusionary, and potentially offensive terms in evidence syntheses and systematic searches.
References
- Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.Some information above from Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C. et al. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodology 18, 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
- Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocolsPeters, Micah D.J.; Godfrey, Christina; McInerney, Patricia; Khalil, Hanan; Larsen, Palle; Marnie, Casey; Pollock, Danielle; Tricco, Andrea C.; Munn, Zachary. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis 20(4):p 953-968, April 2022. | DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242
- Increasing the transparency of systematic reviews: presenting a generalized registration formvan den Akker, O. R., Peters, G. Y., Bakker, C. J., Carlsson, R., Coles, N. A., Corker, K. S., Feldman, G., Moreau, D., Nordström, T., Pickering, J. S., Riegelman, A., Topor, M. K., van Veggel, N., Yeung, S. K., Call, M., Mellor, D. T., & Pfeiffer, N. (2023). Increasing the transparency of systematic reviews: presenting a generalized registration form. Systematic reviews, 12(1), 170. https://doi-org.kumc.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02281-7
Related Library Guides
- EndNote GuideA citation management program that allows you to build and organize a database of references, insert and bibliography in your paper, share references with colleagues to collaborate, and more.
- CovidenceA web-based tool that will help you through the research review process of screening your references, data extraction, and keeping track of your work.
- Gray LiteratureInformation such as government reports, conference proceedings, graduate dissertations, unpublished clinical trials, and much more that can be used in research.
