Exploration of Systematic Reviews versus Comprehensive Reviews
Scoping reviews and systematic reviews are two popular methods used in research to gather and synthesize evidence. While they share some similarities, they have distinct differences in their approach, objectives, and methodology.
Scoping Reviews
Scoping reviews are broad and exploratory in nature. They aim to map the breadth of evidence, clarify concepts, identify gaps, or determine the need for a future systematic review. Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews do not aim to be exhaustive within their defined scope, capturing all relevant evidence on a particular question. Instead, they provide an overview or map of available evidence, without usually involving critical appraisal or detailed synthesis of study quality.
Scoping reviews are suitable for topics that are complex, heterogeneous, or underexplored. They are often used as a preliminary step to a systematic review, helping to identify the types of evidence available, potential research questions, and relevant inclusion criteria. Scoping reviews may use narrative synthesis, and their focus is on identifying and discussing specific characteristics or concepts within the literature, rather than generating direct clinical or policy recommendations.
The PRISMA-ScR checklist is specifically designed for reporting scoping reviews, including additional items relevant to scoping reviews, such as charting methods, stakeholder consultation, and the presentation of a broader range of evidence sources beyond empirical studies.
Systematic Reviews
Systematic reviews, on the other hand, aim to be exhaustive within their defined scope, capturing all relevant evidence on a particular question. They have narrow, focused questions often related to clinical decision-making or effectiveness of interventions. Systematic reviews seek to answer specific questions with a clear outcome.
In contrast to scoping reviews, systematic reviews involve critical appraisal and rigorous synthesis of the quality and results of included studies to provide a definitive summary answer. They use explicit meta-analysis or qualitative synthesis methods. Due to their rigorous methodology, systematic reviews are generally more time-consuming, often taking 12-24 months to complete, while scoping reviews can usually be completed more rapidly, typically within 2-6 months.
The Cochrane Handbook recommends a systematic review when the objective is to evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility, appropriateness, or meaningfulness of a treatment or practice. The PRISMA checklist is tailored for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, consisting of 27 items covering various aspects of systematic reviews.
In summary, scoping reviews are best when the aim is to explore a wide field of evidence without restricting to particular study designs or outcomes, while systematic reviews focus on critically evaluating and synthesizing all relevant evidence to answer a precise research question. This distinction helps researchers select the appropriate review type based on their research objectives and the maturity and focus of the literature topic.
- In the field of research, scoping reviews and systematic reviews are employed for data analysis, each with unique objectives and methodologies.
- Scoping reviews, being broad and exploratory, are utilized to map the breadth of evidence, identify gaps, or assess the need for further research, often in complex or under-researched areas of mental health or education-and-self-development.
- Distinct from scoping reviews, systematic reviews are designed to be exhaustive, providing a definitive summary of evidence to answer precise treatment-related questions in psychology or science, often through rigorous synthesis and critical appraisal.
- To facilitate theoretical frameworks in both types of reviews, specific checklists such as PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews and PRISMA for systematic reviews have been developed to ensure a systematic and comprehensive approach to reporting the reviews.
