Large scoping reviews: managing volume and potential chaos in a pool of evidence sources

Oral
2024 Prague [Global Evidence Summit]
Alexander L1, Cooper K1, Evans C2, Godfrey C3, Khalil H4, Pollock D5
1School 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, UK
2School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; The Nottingham Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare: a JBI Centre of Excellence, Nottingham, UK
3Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Kingston, Canada; School of Nursing, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
4School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
5Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Background:

Scoping reviews can provide a valuable contribution to understanding a topic by mapping the body of evidence in a given field alongside other reasons for conducting them. The wide range of sources used for searching can potentially identify a large volume of evidence for screening and subsequent inclusion. In addition, the complexity of data extraction and synthesis can become challenging for reviewers to manage.

Objectives:

This presentation will discuss the practical steps involved in planning, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews.

Methods:

This presentation is informed by experts in scoping review methodology, including members of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. A proposed definition of a large scoping review will be presented.

Results:

We propose that large scoping reviews can involve around 100 sources of evidence or more, but we recognize the need to consider the volume of data, complexity of data extraction, analysis, and the purpose. Six questions can be considered by reviewers in planning a potentially large or complex scoping review: 1) Who should be part of the review team? 2) Can I be more specific in my question(s) and search strategy to reduce the number of evidence sources and still answer the review question? 3) How can I best manage the review? 4) How will I manage data extraction and analysis? 5) How do I best present the data to answer the review questions(s)? 6) How and where will I publish this scoping review?

Conclusions:

By considering and addressing the 6 questions, reviewers can better manage the conduct and reporting of large scoping reviews from initial planning to reporting stage. This guidance will not directly impact patients, but the contribution to scoping review methods will ensure more robust evidence production.