Scoping studies differ from systematic reviews in several ways:
Scoping review | Systematic review | |
---|---|---|
Research question | Broadly defined | Highly focused |
Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Developed post hoc at study selection stage | Developed at protocol stage |
Study selection | All study types | Defined study types |
Data extraction | “Charts” data according to key issues, themes, etc. | Synthesizes & aggregates findings |
HOWEVER both systematic reviews and scoping reviews require comprehensive and structured searches of the literature to maximize recall and decrease bias.
Additional information:
Guide to Knowledge Synthesis from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
Evidence syntheses differ from traditional narrative or literature reviews in several ways:
Narrative review | Evidence Synthesis | |
---|---|---|
Search methods | not systematic, nor validated, nor peer reviewed | systematic, highly structured to minimize bias ; conducted much like other scientific studies |
Inclusion/Exclusion criteria | Not explicitly stated | Included in protocol or developed post hoc |
Bias | potential for authors to selectively include or exclude studies to support a position | attempts to minimize bias based on protocol, non-selective reporting of outcomes and transparent and reproducible search strategies |
Replication & updating | Difficult since search methodology not reported in detail in methods section nor included in full in the appendices | Designed to be reproducible and facilitate updating |
Gerstein Science Information Centre
9 King's College Circle
Toronto, ON, M5S 1A5
ask.gerstein@utoronto.ca
416-978-2280
Map
About web accessibility. Tell us about a web accessibility problem.
About online privacy and data collection.
© University of Toronto. All rights reserved.