Practical Guidance for Knowledge Synthesis: Scoping Review Methods

Abstract

Scoping reviews are a useful approach to synthesizing research evidence although the objectives and methods are different to that of systematic reviews, yet some confusion persists around how to plan and prepare so that a completed scoping review complies with best practice in methods and meets international standards for reporting criteria. This paper describes how to use available guidance to ensure a scoping review project meets global standards, has transparency of methods and promotes readability though the use of innovative approaches to data analysis and presentation. We address some of the common issues such as which projects are more suited to systematic reviews, how to avoid an inadequate search and/or poorly reported search strategy, poorly described methods and lack of transparency, and the issue of how to plan and present results that are clear, visually compelling and accessible to readers. Effective pre-planning, adhering to protocol and detailed consideration of how the results data will be communicated to the readership are critical. The aim of this article is to provide clarity about what is meant by conceptual clarity and how pre-planning enables review authors to produce scoping reviews which are of high quality, reliability and readily publishable.

<p>A Comprehensive Scoping Review Protocol of Using Living Labs to Explore Needs and Solutions for Older Adults with Dementia</p>

“…The focus will be on those persons' needs and wants on the acronym PCC (participants, concepts, context). 53 The following research question was developed to define our search of the available knowledge and publications: "What does the literature say about Living Labs whose activities are dedicated to older adults with dementia, whether they live in the community or in nursing homes?" Specific objectives are:…”

Protocol for a scoping review of digital health for older adults with cancer and their families

“…27 Literature also indicates that scoping reviews are rigorous in their approach to providing rich and contextual details evidence of research activity in a particular area. 28 Despite the strengths, the lack of methodological quality assessment and quality of evidence grading even for empirical evidence minimises the ability of results from a scoping review to inform clinical decision-making. A recent critical review of the scoping review methods indicated that results of scoping reviews are not used to create recommendations for policy or practice.…”

“…A recent critical review of the scoping review methods indicated that results of scoping reviews are not used to create recommendations for policy or practice. 28 Other important challenges in scoping reviews are the level of complexity across multiple stages 28 and practical issues related to the large corpus and the wide range of research literature. 25 Therefore, it is crucial to follow a sound methodological guidance or framework, 28 and to have a balance between breadth, comprehensiveness and feasibility.…”

“…28 Other important challenges in scoping reviews are the level of complexity across multiple stages 28 and practical issues related to the large corpus and the wide range of research literature. 25 Therefore, it is crucial to follow a sound methodological guidance or framework, 28 and to have a balance between breadth, comprehensiveness and feasibility. 29 Consistent with the rationale for conducting scoping reviews, the scoping review methodology of knowledge synthesis is well suited to the present review study purpose.…”

“…We may decide on additional presentation formats after data extraction from the included studies, so to make sure results data are clear and visually compelling to the readers. 28 Consultation with stakeholders (stage 6) We will engage with relevant stakeholders within the research team's networks, including oncology/geriatric oncology healthcare providers, regional and international community and professional organisations and digital health developers, if it is feasible for them to contribute towards the interpretation as well as research and policy implications of the results, so as to improve the relevance and impact of this scoping review. In addition, we aim to engage with stakeholders to determine suitable approaches for dissemination and additional knowledge translation initiatives, so as to optimise knowledge translation.…”