Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Scoping and mapping reviews are increasingly used by researchers.
Objectives: The aim of this presentation is to outline the main difference between these types of evidence synthesis to improve their conduct and reporting.
Methods: Analysis of the differences between mapping reviews and scoping reviews was undertaken to provide clear guidance to the evidence synthesis community with examples from the published literature. The methods for scoping reviews will be based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guide to scoping reviews, whereas the methods for mapping reviews will be based on the Campbell Collaboration guidance.
Results: Several differences exist between the methodologies, and these are in their protocol development, scope, inclusion criteria, data extraction, reporting, and use. Mapping reviews are mainly driven by questions of effectiveness of a particular intervention and, therefore, they use the Participant Intervention Comparator Outcome Study type format similar to systematic reviews of effectiveness. Scoping reviews mostly use the Participant, context, concept (PCC) format, where they map a concept of interest relevant to a particular population in a specific setting and context. The results of the mapping reviews can be used inform research priorities and research funding, whereas scoping review results may be used to inform policy development by clarifying key concepts and methods and further research.
Conclusions: We recommend that authors who are planning to undertake scoping reviews confirm that their research question can be appropriately answered using a scoping review methodology; however, for broader research questions without the need for an in-depth analysis of the information, we recommend that authors consider the appropriate methods guidance and reporting standards.
Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement: Not relevant.
Objectives: The aim of this presentation is to outline the main difference between these types of evidence synthesis to improve their conduct and reporting.
Methods: Analysis of the differences between mapping reviews and scoping reviews was undertaken to provide clear guidance to the evidence synthesis community with examples from the published literature. The methods for scoping reviews will be based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guide to scoping reviews, whereas the methods for mapping reviews will be based on the Campbell Collaboration guidance.
Results: Several differences exist between the methodologies, and these are in their protocol development, scope, inclusion criteria, data extraction, reporting, and use. Mapping reviews are mainly driven by questions of effectiveness of a particular intervention and, therefore, they use the Participant Intervention Comparator Outcome Study type format similar to systematic reviews of effectiveness. Scoping reviews mostly use the Participant, context, concept (PCC) format, where they map a concept of interest relevant to a particular population in a specific setting and context. The results of the mapping reviews can be used inform research priorities and research funding, whereas scoping review results may be used to inform policy development by clarifying key concepts and methods and further research.
Conclusions: We recommend that authors who are planning to undertake scoping reviews confirm that their research question can be appropriately answered using a scoping review methodology; however, for broader research questions without the need for an in-depth analysis of the information, we recommend that authors consider the appropriate methods guidance and reporting standards.
Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement: Not relevant.