Scoping reviews: breaking down the what, why, and how

Workshop
2023 London
1Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI)
2Li 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
3Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen's University School of Nursing, Kingston, ON, Canada,
4University of South Australia, 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,
5International Development Coordinating Group (IDCG), The Campbell Collaboration; The Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group
6Department 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
7The Wits-JBI Centre for Evidence-based Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
8Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Institute for Health Services and Health System Researcüdersdorf, Germany; Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane),
9School 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,
Background: Evidence synthesis provides the best available evidence to decision-makers and is pivotal to well-functioning, rapid-learning health systems. Scoping reviews have grown in popularity within the evidence synthesis community. Scoping reviews are distinct from but related to systematic reviews and are suited to answering different research questions usually beyond the scope of a systematic review. Whilst systematic reviews are able to answer questions on the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness and experiences of a particular intervention, scoping reviews identify and map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources and knowledge gaps. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is often inconsistent, and this workshop hopes to support further understanding in this area.
Objectives: Our objective is to provide participants with information on the role of scoping reviews, the procedures for conducting and reporting scoping reviews and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guidelines, introduction to new JBI methodology on the role of knowledge users and the methods of capturing, analysing, and presenting results of scoping reviews.

Description: Following a short presentation, participants will be divided into small, facilitator-led working groups to discuss the provided scoping review exemplars to 1) determine whether the examples are correct using the JBI scoping review methodology and/or the PRISMA-ScR and 2) discuss what implications the exemplar scoping review has for other researchers, decision-makers, and patients. The workshop will then continue with a brief presentation and discussion on knowledge users’ role in scoping reviews. The workshop will conclude with an expert panel where participants can ask questions about scoping reviews and their relevance to guideline development. Participants will have access to resources in the session (methodological guidance articles, infographics and decision-making trees) via Dropbox.