How to extract, analyse and present results in scoping reviews

Oral
2023 London
1Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide
2University UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia, Adelaide Nursing School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia, The Ce
3School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
4The Wits-JBI Centre for Evidence-based Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa,
5School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK, The Scottish Centre for Evidence-based, Multi-professional Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland,
6Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Epidemiology Division and Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
7The Nottingham Centre for Evidence-based Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
8Department of Nursing Fundamentals and Administration, Nursing School, Federal Fluminense University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; The Brazilian Centre of Evidence-based Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil,
9Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen's University School of Nursing, Kingston, ON, Canada
10Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Rüdersdorf, Germany; Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane)
11International Development Coordinating Group (IDCG), The Campbell Collaboration; The Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group
12JBI, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Background: The extraction, analysis and presentation of results in scoping reviews can be challenging. Inconsistencies and inappropriateness in the analytical approaches undertaken during the analysis and presentation of the data within scoping reviews has been a recurrent issue. Additionally, scoping reviews can include a variety of evidence sources, such as peer-reviewed primary research, reviews, and grey literature, such as guidelines, organizational reports, policies, government documents and blogs. This variety of evidence levels and sources creates challenges when trying to extract, analyse and present the results in a cohesive manner.

Objectives: This presentation aims to clarify the process of extracting data from different sources of evidence, discuss what data can be extracted (and what should not) and how to analyse extracted data, including an explanation of basic qualitative content analysis, and offer suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Methods: Using best-practice examples and drawing on the expertise of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group, and a member who is an editor of a journal that publishes scoping reviews, this discussion will expand on existing guidance.

Results: Examples of the data extraction process and specifically what can be extracted from the included evidence sources (and what should not) will be presented. The use of basic qualitative content analysis within scoping reviews, including when it should and should not be used, will be showcased. Furthermore, suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews will be discussed.

Conclusions: The extraction, analysis and presentation of findings within a scoping review can be challenging because of the variety of evidence sources that scoping reviews can typically include and the absence of specific guidance for reviewers. This discussion will hopefully address these challenges and guide how to extract, analyse and present data within scoping reviews. It is hoped that scoping review authors will use this guidance to improve the quality and clarity of published scoping reviews and make conducting and reporting scoping reviews easier.

Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: None.