BackgroundScoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate.ResultsResearchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions.ConclusionsScoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

BackgroundSystematic reviews have been considered as the pillar on which evidence-based healthcare rests. Systematic review methodology has evolved and been modified over the years to accommodate the range of questions that may arise in the health and medical sciences. This paper explores a concept still rarely considered by novice authors and in the literature: determining the type of systematic review to undertake based on a research question or priority.ResultsWithin the framework of the evidence-based healthcare paradigm, defining the question and type of systematic review to conduct is a pivotal first step that will guide the rest of the process and has the potential to impact on other aspects of the evidence-based healthcare cycle (evidence generation, transfer and implementation). It is something that novice reviewers (and others not familiar with the range of review types available) need to take account of but frequently overlook. Our aim is to provide a typology of review types and describe key elements that need to be addressed during question development for each type.ConclusionsIn this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review types.

No abstract

Introduction: Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSR) provide a more complete basis for complex decision-making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision-makers. Although MMSR are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance for MMSR, however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology Objective: To outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI MMSR with a focus on data synthesis, specifically, methods related to how data is combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence.Methods: Between 2015 and 2019 the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a Chapter included in the JBI Reviewer's Manual, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. Results:The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting a MMSR recommends reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of question(s) that is(are) posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al and Sandelowski's typology on MMSR. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken which involves independent synthesis of quantitative data and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative evidence and qualitative evidence which are then integrated together. Conclusions:The updated guidance on JBI MMSR provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods review offers an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with healthcare quality and saf...

No abstract