Evidence Synthesis Research: Scoping review

Professor Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson

2024

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this session, you should be able to understand the following:

• Difference between scoping review method and other evidence synthesis research methods
• Scoping review framework
• Structure of a scoping review protocol

Rule for this Webinar

• Please remain muted throughout the webinar.

​

• Raise your hand to contribute or ask a question. Once acknowledged, unmute yourself to speak.

​

• Questions will be addressed at the end of each slide.

​

• Feel free to ask questions when needed.

Outline

• Defining scoping review
• Scoping review theories
• Steps involved in conducting a scoping review
• Structure of a scoping review protocol
• Identifying target journals for scoping review protocols

​

​

​

​

Defining Scoping Review

• A type of research synthesis that follow a systematic approach to map the literature
• on a particular topic or research area
• provide an opportunity
• to identify key concepts in your research area of interest
• to identify knowledge gaps
• to set the agenda for research
• To identify types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and research

​

​

Daudt, H. M., van Mossel, C., & Scott, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC medical research methodology, 13(1), 1-9.

Defining scoping review�

Rapid review

POLICY BRIEF

Systematic review & meta-regression

Primary research

Defining Scoping Reviews (cont)

• Modern, transdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and under utilized research method in our context
• Type of research method that allows researchers to bring together all relevant information on ONE specific research question.
• Unlike systematic review, scoping review does not seek to determine effect or impact of interventions
• Generally include a methodical and comprehensive literature synthesis focused on a well-formulated research question
• The question should be refined using PCC (Population Concept and context) nomenclature
• PCC must be well defined a priori – at protocol stage

​

Level of Confidence - Scoping Review

Systematic review and meta-synthesis/meta-ethnography

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic review and meta-regression

• Reliability of the evidence to guide policy and practice
• Replicability of the study
• Level of trustworthy of evidence

Why Conduct Scoping Reviews

• To determine:
• the extent (i.e. size)
• range (variety)
• nature (characteristics) of the evidence on a topic or question
• the value of undertaking a systematic review
• summarize findings from a body of knowledge that is heterogeneous in methods or discipline
• identify gaps in the literature to aid the planning and commissioning of future research

Scoping Review Guidelines

• Arksey and O’Malley (2005) formulated framework
• Levac et al. (2010) advanced the method
• Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual provided a guide for conducting scoping review
• Tricco developed a PRISMAScR chart and checklist for reporting results
• Increases transparency of methods
• Allows readers to judge validity and reliability
• Appropriateness of the search strategy

Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework

• Stage 1: identifying the research question
• Rationalizing the question and presenting in on PCC
• Stage 2: identifying relevant studies
• Database search
• Stage 3: study selection
• Title, abstract and full-article screening
• Stage 4: charting the data
• Data extraction- use a tool with defined variables
• Stage 5: collating, summarizing and reporting the results
• Characteristics of included studies in a table and thematic analysis
• Stage 6: framework optional stage: consultation exercise
• You need to apply for ethics approval if you want to include this stage

Levac et al. (2010) advanced the method�

• Recommendations include:
• clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one)
• balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process
• using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data incorporating a numerical summary
• qualitative thematic analysis
• reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research
• The purpose of undertaking a scoping study -- to identify gaps in the existing literature -- may yield false conclusions about the nature and extent of those gaps if the quality of the evidence is not assessed

​

Tricco PRISMAScR Chart and Checklist�

• PRISMA-ScR chart can help with reporting screening results
• PRISMA-ScR can be accessed online
• PRISMA-ScR checklist was developed following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network.
• PRISMA-ScR checklist helps readers develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews

​

​

Title Registration for Scoping Reviews

• Register your scoping review in Open Source Framework (OSF) registries
• Do this after completing the protocol
• Do this for transparency
• To solicit collaboration
• To save to title
• Can’t be registered on PROSPERO

Article Screening

• A process of selecting articles that are clearly not related to your topic
• Determine whether the articles are relevant the research question.
• Steps:
• Screening of the title and abstracts of articles
• Retrieve articles included following article screening
• Screening of retrieved full articles
• Screening must be guided by the study inclusion/exclusion criteria
• It is highly recommended that two independent reviewers screen all studies
• At abstract stage reviewer should resolve areas of disagreement by consensus
• At full article screening stage reviewers must invite an additional reviewer to screen the disputed articles, preferably the study PI
• Electronic tools are required for screening, don’t attempt doing this manually
• Covidence
• Ray.an
• Google form

Quality Appraisal

• Quality appraisal is about judgment making
• at least two reviewers independently involved in the appraisal process using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT)
• Requires experience or training in research methodologies.
• developed to provide a quality appraisal tool for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies included in evidence in evidence synthesis studies
• It cannot be used for non-empirical papers such as review and theoretical papers
• allows the appraisal of most common types of study methodologies and designs
• the tool is presented as a well structured spreadsheet
• specific designs such as economic and diagnostic accuracy studies cannot be assessed with the MMAT

Data Extraction

• Develop a data extraction tool – Use Google form
• Variable are determined by the research question
• In general -extract the following variables:
• Author (surname of first author) and year of publication
• Study setting
• Geographic setting
• Study population
• %male
• %female
• Average age of participants
• Study design
• Aim of the study
• Main findings
• Conclusion

​

​

​

​

​

​

NEW QUESTIONS

INTRO TO EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS RESEARCH METHODS- Prof Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson, 14 April 2021

​

Reading List

• Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8(1), 19-32.

• Levac et al. 2010 advanced the method

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation science, 5(1), 1-9.

• Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual provided a guide for conducting scoping review

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.

• Tricco et al developed a PRISMAScR chart and checklist for reporting results

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7), 467-473.

Khalil, H., Peters, M. D., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., ... & Munn, Z. (2021). Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 130, 156-160.

• Example of scoping review protocol

Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Lillie, E., Pham, B., & Straus, S. E. (2017). Utility of social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance: a scoping review protocol. BMJ open, 7(1), e013474.

• OSF register webinar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnKkGO3OM9c

• Mixed methods quality appraisal tool

Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., ... & Vedel, I. (2018). Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of copyright, 1148552, 10.

​

Thank You