VIDEO
HIGHLIGHT
Log InSign up
A practical guide to scoping reviews: Purpose and process
SummaryTranscriptChat

A practical guide to scoping reviews: Purpose and process

Welcome and Introduction to the Webinar

Overview of the Webinar

  • Julie Brown introduces the Covidence community webinar focused on scoping reviews, outlining its purpose and process.
  • Nancy Elsharb and Joel Ronco support Julie in hosting, ensuring a smooth experience for attendees.

Guest Speaker Introduction

  • Dr. Danielle Pollock from the University of Adelaide is introduced as an expert in evidence synthesis methodology and lived experience research.
  • Danielle's extensive background includes coordinating the JBI scoping review network and supporting high-quality review designs globally.

Housekeeping Notes

Webinar Logistics

  • The session will be recorded, with links sent to registrants within 24 hours.
  • Attendees are muted but can ask questions via Q&A on Zoom or chat on YouTube.

Introduction to Covidence

What is Covidence?

  • Covidence is a not-for-profit organization providing a web-based solution for conducting scoping reviews efficiently.
  • The platform supports users through various stages: creating reviews, importing sources, screening, data charting, extraction, and analysis.

Growth in Scoping Reviews

  • There has been a tenfold increase in scoping reviews since 2010; over 20,000 were published last year alone.
  • The webinar attracted over 8,600 registrations, indicating significant interest in this area of research.

Poll Results on Scoping Review Experience

Participant Engagement

  • A poll reveals that 10% have conducted multiple scoping reviews; 28% have done one; 56% are considering it; and 6% are unsure about their need for one.

Key Questions About Scoping Reviews

Common Inquiries Addressed

  • Danielle addresses common questions submitted by participants regarding when to conduct a scoping review versus other types of reviews.

Understanding Scoping Reviews

Determining if Your Review Should Be a Scoping Review

  • Danielle emphasizes understanding different review types to determine if a scoping review is appropriate for specific research questions.

Misconceptions Clarified

  • Many misconceptions exist about what scoping reviews can do compared to systematic or literature reviews.

Purpose Distinction

  • Systematic reviews focus on answering clinically meaningful questions while scoping reviews explore broader characteristics or concepts of existing literature.

Tools for Deciding Between Review Types

Decision-Making Framework

  • A decision tree helps researchers decide whether a scoping review is suitable based on their intent and type of evidence needed.

Identifying Evidence Gaps

Scoping reviews help identify available evidence types and gaps rather than focusing solely on outcomes like systematic reviews do.

Other Forms of Evidence Synthesis

  • Discussion includes mapping reviews and evidence gap maps as alternatives to traditional systematic or scoping approaches.

Visual Representation Benefits

  • Evidence gap maps visually present where evidence exists or lacks within specific interventions aiding policy-making decisions.

Key Processes Comparison

Differences Among Review Types

  • Key differences between systematic, mapping, overview, and scoping processes hinge upon question specificity—scoping being broader while systematic focuses narrowly.

Resources Available

Tools for Researchers

  • Mention of tools like the "right review tool" developed by Andrea Tricco’s team assists researchers in selecting appropriate methodologies based on their needs.

Grey Literature Considerations

Importance of Grey Literature

  • Discussion highlights how grey literature should be included in scoping reviews due to its breadth of information beyond peer-reviewed articles.

Searching Strategies

  • Emphasis placed on developing transparent search strategies that include grey literature while maintaining rigor throughout the process.

Iterative Search Process Explained

The iterative nature during protocol development allows adjustments before finalizing search strategies across databases including grey literature sources.

Tracking Grey Literature Searches

Examples provided illustrate how researchers can effectively track searches through government websites or general search engines like Google when exploring grey literature resources relevant to their topics.

Planning Protocol Stage Essentials

Researchers must plan thoroughly during protocol development regarding which websites will be searched for grey literature inclusion ensuring reproducibility later down the line.

(Timestamps)

Setting Boundaries During Searches

-[] (Timestamps)

Setting boundaries such as limiting pages viewed during searches helps manage overwhelming results while ensuring thoroughness without excessive time spent screening irrelevant studies.

How to Approach Data Extraction in Scoping Reviews

Understanding the Challenges of Data Extraction

  • Data extraction is identified as one of the most challenging aspects of conducting literature reviews, including systematic, narrative, and scoping reviews.
  • The speaker emphasizes the importance of managing qualitative or textual evidence during data extraction in scoping reviews.

Principles for Effective Data Extraction

  • Focus on extracting only relevant information that directly answers your research questions; avoid collecting excessive data.
  • Utilize multiple reviewers for data extraction to minimize bias and ensure accuracy; having a second set of eyes can catch mistakes.
  • Develop tailored extraction tools or forms specific to your review needs, as standardized forms may not fit well with scoping reviews.

Organizing Your Extraction Process

  • Expect initial outputs from data extraction tools like Covidence to appear chaotic; organization will improve during analysis.
  • Ensure all team members are aligned on what constitutes relevant data by developing clear extraction information sheets and conducting piloting sessions.

Managing Qualitative Evidence

  • When handling qualitative textual evidence, consider it part of the initial analysis process rather than just a collection task.
  • Use simple frequency counts and narrative summaries for qualitative analysis instead of complex methods like meta-analysis which are inappropriate for scoping reviews.

Planning and Presenting Your Findings

  • Plan your data extraction and analysis ahead of time within your protocols to maintain clarity throughout the review process.
  • Explore various visualization tools (e.g., Datawrapper, Power BI, Tableau) for presenting findings creatively while avoiding excessive tables that could overwhelm readers.

Discussion on Scoping Reviews and Analysis Methods

Extracting and Checking Data

  • The discussion begins with the suggestion of having one person extract data while another checks it, acknowledging potential limitations that need to be addressed.

Engagement in the Webinar

  • The host expresses appreciation for the audience's enthusiasm and engagement, inviting them to stay for additional questions directed at Danielle.

Qualitative Content vs. Thematic Analysis

  • Danielle differentiates between qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis, noting that thematic analysis is primarily based on primary research and emphasizes reflexivity.
  • She explains that scoping reviews focus more on categorizing content rather than providing deep interpretations.

Protocol Deviations in Scoping Reviews

  • Danielle discusses the importance of adhering to a protocol during scoping reviews, emphasizing that deviations should be carefully considered.
  • She stresses transparency when reporting any changes made to the original protocol, suggesting documentation in supplementary tables or methods sections.

Evolving Definitions of Scoping Reviews

  • A question arises about whether Arksey and O'Malley's definitions are outdated compared to JBI guidance; Danielle acknowledges both frameworks but highlights JBI's modern updates.

Stakeholder Consultation in Scoping Reviews

Importance of Stakeholder Engagement

  • Danielle reflects on stakeholder consultation as an optional phase in scoping reviews, stressing its value if properly facilitated.
  • She notes the necessity of ensuring a psychologically safe environment for participants, especially when involving patients or public members.

Levels of Engagement with Stakeholders

  • Different levels of engagement range from co-authorship to simple consultations; she encourages early relationship development with stakeholders for better outcomes.

Structuring Research Questions Using PCC Framework

Utilizing PCC Framework

  • The PCC (Population, Concept, Context) framework is discussed as essential for structuring research questions within scoping reviews.
  • Danielle mentions flexibility within the PCC framework; sometimes only one component may be used which can lead to broader searches but messier extractions.

Evidence Reporting in Scoping Reviews

Equality Among Study Designs

  • When reporting evidence from various study designs like RCTs or cohort studies, Danielle believes all designs should be treated equally within scoping review contexts.

Updating Scoping Reviews

Frequency of Updates

  • The conversation shifts towards how often scoping reviews should be updated; Danielle suggests considering substantial new evidence as a key factor for updates.

Conclusion and Closing Remarks

Final Thoughts

  • The host thanks everyone for their participation and insights shared during the webinar while encouraging attendees to reach out with further questions post-event.
Video description

Scoping reviews are powerful tools to explore broad or emerging topics, map existing evidence, and identify gaps in the literature. But how are they different from systematic reviews, and when should you choose one over the other? This webinar is designed for experienced researchers who want to confidently plan, conduct, or support scoping reviews. We’ll walk through key steps, common challenges, and practical tips to help you get started or refine your current approach. By the end of this webinar, you will: Deepen your understanding of when and why to choose a scoping review over other review types Understand the essential steps involved in planning and conducting a scoping review Gain practical tips to define your question, chart the data, and report your findings clearly Bonus! This webinar is being led by Dr. Danielle Pollock, University of Adelaide. Dr Danielle Pollock is a nationally and internationally recognised evidence synthesis methodologist and lived experience research in stillbirth stigma. She is a Senior Research Fellow and senior member of the Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations, and Impact (HESRI) research group, with extensive experience in evidence synthesis methodology, guideline development, and interest holder engagement. She has played a leading role in advancing scoping review methodology, establishing and coordinating the JBI Scoping Review Network, and supporting research teams worldwide in the design and conduct of high-quality reviews. Her work focuses on advancing evidence-based healthcare through rigorous methodology, respectful collaboration, and meaningful engagement with diverse communities. If you can't attend the live session, register anyway and you will receive a recording 24 hrs after the session.