Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Munn, Zachary; Peters, Micah D J; Stern, Cindy; Tufănaru, Cătălin; McArthur, Alexa; Aromataris, Edoardo

doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Cited by 6,719 publications

(5,249 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

5,006

Contrasting

Unclassified

230

Order By: Relevance

“…Focus was given to systematic research reviews, defined here as ‘a type of research synthesis…to identify and retrieve international evidence that is relevant to a particular question or questions and to appraise and synthesize the results of this search to inform practice, policy and in some cases, further research…’ (Munn, Stern, Aromataris, Lockwood, & Jordan, , p. 144). Such reviews are conducted for a host of reasons: to confirm current practices, identify new practices, identify conflicting results, identify areas for future research, uncover international evidence and produce statements to guide decision‐making (Higgins & Thomas, ; Munn, Peters, et al, ). Journal articles, which met that definition and comported with those reasons, were included.…”

Section: Surveying Supervision Research Reviews: Rationale Focus Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reviews of supervision studies have long been valued for providing a critical perspective on the available research, identifying (a) what can be learned to guide practice, (b) what obstacles emerge as limitations across investigations and (c) what areas are in need of attention going forward (cf. Mulrow, ; Munn, Peters, et al, ). Such reviews serve as barometers of progress, ideally reflecting increasing methodological sophistication and data base solidification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What do clinical supervision research reviews tell us? Surveying the last 25 years

Watkins

2019

Couns and Psychother Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What do clinical supervision research reviews across the last 25 years tell us? That question is subsequently examined. Based on database and literature searches, 20 reviews appearing from 1995 through 2019 were identified for survey examination; consistencies, inconsistencies and other defining features were determined across reviews; and the survey findings and their implications are considered. Primary findings are as follows: (a) ‘proof’ for supervision appears to be more ‘proof by association’ than otherwise, being primarily a product of ex post facto, cross‐sectional, correlational study; (b) evidence supporting supervision impact of any type is weak at best, especially so for worker and client outcomes; (c) supervision models generally lack empirical foundation; (d) evidence‐based supervision appears to be more a hope and dream than supervision‐based reality at present; and (e) the primary methodological problems that plagued supervision research in the 1990s are still all too frequent in modern research. Some questions to entertain about supervision going forward, and some remedies for improving its research, are proposed.

show abstract

Section: Surveying Supervision Research Reviews: Rationale Focus Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do clinical supervision research reviews tell us? Surveying the last 25 years

Watkins

2019

Couns and Psychother Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The narrative review, also identified as a descriptive or critical review, summarises a group of primary studies usually to explain or justify investigation of a clinical condition or phenomenon, and possibly to generate new theories and hypotheses from existing knowledge , . It can identify and explain problems and gaps in knowledge but not necessarily by analysing large amounts of literature or statistical data from multiple clinical trials .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care

MacEntee

2019

Gerodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The objectives of this paper are to (a) Review published references to systematic reviews; (b) offer a typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care; and (c) summarise the guides for designing, reporting and appraising the reviews. Background Systematic reviews play a role in finding, synthesising, transferring and implementing evidence for healthcare policy, practice guidelines and allocation of health resources. They have been particularly successful in confirming or synthesising evidence for health care by meta‐analysing aggregated data from multiple randomised controlled trials. However, concerns about the limitations of evidence from controlled trials have prompted interest in other review methods capable of locating and appraising evidence from more diverse, and possibly more realistic, healthcare situations. Methods An iterative citation‐tracking process with Google Search and grey literature identified 204 papers on previous typologies and methods of systematic reviews. Results and Conclusions There are six types of systematic reviews: narrative; meta‐analysis; scoping; qualitative; umbrella; and realist. Each type has distinct objectives, characteristics and attributes, but with much overlapping of methods and guides. Sensitivity to the need for qualitative evidence on complex human responses to ill‐health and health care has broadened the objectives and methods of health‐related systematic reviews to find, appraise and synthesis useful evidence for practice guidelines, healthcare policy and allocation of health resources.

show abstract

“…In doing so, the review identified the extent to which there is a consensus in the parameters of assessment, procedures and methods; differences and similarities in assessment at 3 years of age compared with practice at age 5; and the types of speech samples used (Munn et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Assessing speech at three years of age in the cleft palate population: a scoping review of assessment practices

Fitzpatrick

Coad

Sell

et al. 2020

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is no consensus in the UK regarding the types of speech samples or parameters of speech that should be assessed at 3 years of age in children with cleft palate ± cleft lip (CP±L), despite cleft units routinely assessing speech at this age. The standardization of assessment practices would facilitate comparisons of outcomes across UK cleft units; earlier identification of speech impairments—which could support more timely treatments; and more reliable recording of therapy impacts and surgical interventions. Aims To explore assessment practices used to assess speech in 3‐year‐old children with CP±L, including speech parameters, methods of assessment and the nature of the speech sample used. Methods & Procedures A broad examination of the literature was undertaken through the use of a scoping review conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Search terms were generated from a preliminary search and then used in the main search (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO). Main Contribution A combination of approaches (medical, linguistic, developmental and functional) is required to assess CP±L speech at age 3. A developmental approach is recommended at this age, considering the complexity of speech profiles at age 3, in which typically developing speech processes may occur alongside cleft speech characteristics. A combined measure for both nasal emission and turbulence, and an overall measure for velopharyngeal function for speech, show potential for assessment at this age. Categorical ordinal scales are frequently used; the use of continuous scales has yet to be fully explored at age 3. Although single‐word assessments, including a subset of words developed for cross‐linguistic comparisons, are frequently used, more than one type of speech sample may be needed to assess speech at this age validly. The lack of consensus regarding speech samples highlights a need for further research into the types of speech samples 3‐year‐olds can complete; the impact of incomplete speech samples on outcome measures (particularly relevant at this age when children may be less able to complete a full sample); the impact of different speech samples on the validity of assessments; and the reliability of listener judgements. Conclusions & Implications Whilst a medical model and linguistic approaches are often central in assessments of age‐3 cleft speech, this review highlights the importance of developmental and functional approaches to assessment. Cross‐linguistic single‐word assessments show potential, and would facilitate the comparison of UK speech outcomes with other countries. Further research should explore the impact of different speech samples and rating scales on assessment validity and listener reliability.

show abstract

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Cited by 6,719 publications

References 49 publications

What do clinical supervision research reviews tell us? Surveying the last 25 years

What do clinical supervision research reviews tell us? Surveying the last 25 years

A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care

Assessing speech at three years of age in the cleft palate population: a scoping review of assessment practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About