Rafael Alves ITM

Scoping reviews - reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

Leitura de 9 min

Scoping Reviews: Reinforcing and Advancing the Methodology and Application

Resumo

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. Despite available guidance, some publications use the term ‘scoping review’ without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review’s objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews. Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-todate reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

Bibliografia

PETERS, Micah D. J. et al. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Systematic Reviews, v. 10, n. 1, p. 263, dez. 2021.

Bibliografia Latex

@article{peters2021,
  title = {Scoping Reviews: Reinforcing and Advancing the Methodology and Application},
  author = {Peters, Micah D. J. and Marnie, Casey and Colquhoun, Heather and Garritty, Chantelle M. and Hempel, Susanne and Horsley, Tanya and Langlois, Etienne V. and Lillie, Erin and O'Brien, Kelly K. and Tun{\c c}alp, {\"\cyrchar\CYRO}zge and Wilson, Michael G. and Zarin, Wasifa and Tricco, Andrea C.},
  year = 2021,
  month = dec,
  journal = {Systematic Reviews},
  volume = {10},
  number = {1},
  pages = {263},
  issn = {2046-4053},
  doi = {10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3},
  urldate = {2025-12-08},
  language = {en}
}

Minhas Notas

Objetivo

  • Fornecer aos leitores uma atualização breve sobre o trabalho em andamento para aprimorar e melhorar a condução e o relato de revisões de escopo.
  • Abordar a necessidade de rigor, transparência e reprodutibilidade, incentivando o uso de ferramentas atualizadas como o PRISMA-ScR

Método

  • Tipo de Estudo: O artigo é um comentário editorial (Commentary) e não um estudo empírico primário. Ele discute a metodologia de síntese de evidências baseada na experiência dos autores e na literatura existente.
  • Abordagem: Os autores definem o que é uma revisão de escopo, contrastam-na com revisões sistemáticas e mapas de evidências, e discutem a aplicação de diretrizes de relato.

Resultados

  • Definição e Propósito: As Revisões de escopo visam mapear evidências relevantes, identificar lacunas de conhecimento e esclarecer conceitos, respondendo a perguntas geralmente mais amplas do que as de revisões sistemáticas. Elas podem incluir diversos tipos de evidência (empírica e não empírica) e não exigem obrigatoriamente a avaliação do risco de viés (qualidade metodológica) dos estudos incluídos.
  • Problemas Identificados: Apesar da existência de diretrizes, muitos autores ainda usam o termo “revisão de escopo” sem seguir ferramentas metodológicas claras ou citam apenas estruturas desatualizadas (como a de 2005), ignorando avanços recentes como o PRISMA-ScR.
  • Diferenciação:
    • Revisão Sistemática: Focada em eficácia de intervenções, exige avaliação de risco de viés e geralmente visa apoiar decisões clínicas.
    • Revisão de Escopo: Focada em mapear características da evidência, é útil para tópicos emergentes ou heterogêneos e não visa sintetizar dados estatísticos (meta-análise).
  • Importância do PRISMA-ScR: O PRISMA-ScR é apresentado não como um guia de condução, mas como uma lista de verificação (checklist) para garantir que o relato da revisão seja transparente e completo. O uso desta ferramenta aumenta a qualidade e a utilidade da revisão para os usuários finais.
  • Indicações de Uso: Revisões de escopo são ideais para explorar a extensão da literatura, informar pesquisas futuras e quando as evidências são dispersas ou complexas demais para uma síntese de eficácia tradicional.

Comentários Extras

  • …

Referências

  1. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.
  2. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15.
  3. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.
  4. Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.
  5. Paiva L, Dalmolin GL, Andolhe R, dos Santos W. Absenteeism of hospital health workers: scoping review. Av enferm. 2020;38(2):234–48.
  6. Visonà MW, Plonsky L. Arabic as a heritage language: a scoping review. Int J Biling. 2019;24(4):599–615.
  7. McKerricher L, Petrucka P. Maternal nutritional supplement delivery in developing countries: a scoping review. BMC Nutr. 2019;5(1):8.
  8. Fusar-Poli P, Salazar de Pablo G, De Micheli A, et al. What is good mental health? A scoping review. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2020;31:33–46.
  9. Jowsey T, Foster G, Cooper-Ioelu P, Jacobs S. Blended learning via distance in pre-registration nursing education: a scoping review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;44:102775.
  10. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.
  11. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) - Checklist and Explanation
  12. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis: JBI; 2020.
  13. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
  14. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.
  15. Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):28.
  16. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Inf Libr J. 2019;36(3):202–22.
  17. Brady BR, De La Rosa JS, Nair US, Leischow SJ. Electronic cigarette policy recommendations: a scoping review. Am J Health Behav. 2019;43(1):88–104.
  18. Truman E, Elliott C. Identifying food marketing to teenagers: a scoping review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):67.
  19. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224.
  20. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):183.
  21. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Ghassemi M, et al. Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:133–42.
  22. Barker M, Adelson P, Peters MDJ, Steen M. Probiotics and human lactational mastitis: a scoping review. Women Birth. 2020;33(6):e483–e491.
  23. O’Donnell N, Kappen DL, Fitz-Walter Z, Deterding S, Nacke LE, Johnson D. How multidisciplinary is gamification research? Results from a scoping Peters et al. Syst Rev review. Extended abstracts publication of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery; 2017. p. 445–52.
  24. O’Flaherty J, Phillips C. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. Internet High Educ. 2015;25:85–95.
  25. Di Pasquale V, Miranda S, Neumann WP. Ageing and human-system errors in manufacturing: a scoping review. Int J Prod Res. 2020;58(15):4716–40.
  26. Knowledge Synthesis Team. What review is right for you? 2019. https:// whatr eview isrig htfor you. knowl edget ransl ation. net/
  27. Lv M, Luo X, Estill J, et al. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(15):2000125.
  28. Shemilt I, Simon A, Hollands GJ, et al. Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(1):31–49.
  29. Khalil H, Bennett M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Peters M. Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users. Int J Evid-based Healthc. 2020;18(1):95–100.
  30. Kennedy K, Adelson P, Fleet J, et al. Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: a scoping review. Midwifery. 2020;81:102589.
  31. Dall’Ora C, Ball J, Recio-Saucedo A, Griffiths P. Characteristics of shift work and their impact on employee performance and wellbeing: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;57:12–27.
  32. Feo R, Conroy T, Wiechula R, Rasmussen P, Kitson A. Instruments measuring behavioural aspects of the nurse–patient relationship: a scoping review. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(11-12):1808–21.
  33. Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):33.
  34. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4.
  35. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Rios P, et al. Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):31.
  36. Cooper S, Cant R, Kelly M, et al. An evidence-based checklist for improving scoping review quality. Clin Nurs Res. 2021;30(3):230–240.
  37. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):208.
  38. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Rios P, Pham B, Straus SE, Langlois EV. Barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes to engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in knowledge synthesis: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e013929.
  39. Denton M, Borrego M. Funds of knowledge in STEM education: a scoping review. Stud Eng Educ. 2021;1(2):71–92.
  40. Masta S, Secules S. When critical ethnography leaves the field and enters the engineering classroom: a scoping review. Stud Eng Educ. 2021;2(1):35–52.
  41. Li Y, Marier-Bienvenue T, Perron-Brault A, Wang X, Pare G. Blockchain technology in business organizations: a scoping review. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii international conference on system sciences; 2018. https:// core. ac. uk/ downl oad/ 14348 1400. pdf
  42. Houlihan M, Click A, Wiley C. Twenty years of business information literacy research: a scoping review. Evid. Based Libr. Inf. Pract. 2020;15(4):124–163.
  43. Plug I, Stommel W, Lucassen P, Hartman T, Van Dulmen S, Das E. Do women and men use language differently in spoken face-to-face interaction? A scoping review. Rev Commun Res. 2021;9:43–79.
  44. McGowan J, Straus S, Moher D, et al. Reporting scoping reviews - PRISMA ScR extension. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:177–9.

Visão de gráfico

Backlinks