Examining Comparisons: Systematic Review versus Scoping Review
In the realm of research, two types of reviews – systematic reviews and scoping reviews – are commonly used to analyse and synthesize evidence. While they share some similarities, these two methods have distinct differences in their approach, objectives, and best use.
Systematic Reviews
Systematic reviews are designed to be exhaustive within their defined scope, capturing all relevant evidence on a particular question. They aim to evaluate the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, or effectiveness of a treatment or practice. To achieve this, systematic reviews critically appraise individual studies and synthesize empirical evidence to produce a summary answer or recommendation suitable for guiding clinical or policy decisions.
These reviews are narrow in their research question breadth, often focusing on specific, well-defined clinical or policy questions related to the effectiveness, feasibility, or safety of interventions. They use a detailed, specific framework such as PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) to guide their queries.
Scoping Reviews
On the other hand, scoping reviews aim to identify and discuss specific characteristics or concepts within the literature rather than generating direct clinical or policy recommendations. They have broader, more exploratory objectives than the focused questions in systematic reviews.
Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews map the available evidence without critically appraising studies. They summarise what exists rather than answering focused questions or making recommendations. Scoping reviews do not include critical appraisal of included studies, and they avoid clinical questions targeting treatment effectiveness or safety, which are more appropriate for systematic reviews.
Scoping reviews are particularly useful for exploring a broad or complex area where literature is diverse and heterogeneous. They help identify knowledge gaps, clarify concepts, and determine the need for future research or a systematic review. In some cases, scoping reviews can be used as a preliminary step to a systematic review, helping to identify the types of evidence available, potential research questions, and relevant inclusion criteria.
The PRISMA Approach
To communicate their methods and findings more effectively, researchers can use the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist, which is tailored for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For scoping reviews, the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist is specifically designed to improve the reporting of these reviews.
Both systematic and scoping reviews require a protocol, comprehensive and reproducible search strategies, and systematic screening and data extraction, often with at least two reviewers independently involved to reduce bias.
In summary, systematic reviews provide rigorous, quality-assessed answers to precise questions, while scoping reviews provide broad overviews that map existing literature without quality appraisal, clarifying the landscape for future, more focused research. The choice between these two methods depends on the research goals and the specific question being addressed.
[1] Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (1999). Scoping studies: developing the methodology. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 87(3), 205-210. [3] Tricco, A. C., & Elbourne, D. (2011). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 154(4), 264-269. [5] Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
- In the field of mental health, a systematic review could be employed to evaluate the effectiveness of different treatment approaches, analyzing data from various studies and synthesizing the findings to provide a comprehensive answer or recommendation.
- For research in psychology, a scoping review might be more appropriate to identify and discuss the diverse theoretical frameworks used in various studies, thus providing a broad overview and clarifying the current landscape of related concepts and potential future research directions.
- In education-and-self-development, technology has enabled a massive amount of data to be gathered, making data analysis a crucial step in both systematic and scoping reviews, ensuring the validity and reliability of the findings.
- As the understanding of mental health grows, researchers are continually refining their methodologies through continuous research, with systematic and scoping reviews serving as critical tools that contribute to the advancement of the field.
