The increasing amount of evidence has caused an increasing amount of literature reviews. There are different types of reviews —systematic reviews are the best known—, and every type of review has different purposes. The scoping review is a recent model that aims to answer broad questions and identify and expose the available evidence for a broader question, using a rigorous and reproducible method. In the last two decades, researchers have discussed the most appropriate method to carry out scoping reviews, and recently the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was published. This is the fifth article of a methodological collaborative series of narrative reviews about general topics on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to describe what scoping reviews are, identify their objectives, differentiate them from other types of reviews, and provide considerations on how to carry them out.

The significant increase in scientific evidence production has led to the creation of methods to facilitate evidence review and synthesis. This has turned, this has resulted in the emergence of different designs depending on the review’s objective. Evidence gap maps constitute a novel approach for literature review. They are thematic collections of a broad field of evidence, using a systematic search strategy that identifies gaps in knowledge and engages, early on, the target audience to design a friendly graphic product. Evidence maps are a tool to be considered in the roster of options available for research funders in that they are particularly useful for evidence-based decision-making and evidence-based policy development. The most commonly used formats to display the findings of evidence gap search designs are the bubble plot and the intervention-outcome framework. This article corresponds to the sixth of a series of narrative reviews on general topics of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. The purpose of this review is to describe the principal features of evidence gap maps, highlighting their main objectives and utility, exploring the most commonly used mapping formats, and comparing this approach with other evidence synthesis designs.

BackgroundLatin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) is the main reference database in the region; however, the way in which this resource is used in Cochrane systematic reviews has not been studied.ObjectivesTo assess the search methods of Cochrane reviews that used LILACS as a source of information and explore the Cochrane community's perceptions about this resource.MethodsWe identified all Cochrane reviews of interventions published during 2019, which included LILACS as a source of information, and analysed their search methods and also ran a survey through the Cochrane Community.ResultsWe found 133 Cochrane reviews that reported the full search strategies, identifying heterogeneity in search details. The respondents to our survey highlighted many areas for improvement in the use of LILACS, including the usability of the search platform for this purpose.DiscussionThe use and reporting of LILACS in Cochrane reviews demonstrate inconsistencies, as evidenced by the analysis of search reports from systematic reviews and surveys conducted among members of the Cochrane community.ConclusionWith better guidance on how LILACS database is structured, information specialists working on Cochrane reviews should be able to make more effective use of this unique resource.