medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-5057 (Print)
Investigación en Educación Médica

2022, Number 44

<< Back Next >>

Inv Ed Med 2022; 11 (44)

Scoping reviews: a new way of evidence synthesis

Lopez-Cortes OD, Betancourt-Núñez A, Bernal OMF, Vizmanos B

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 98-104
PDF size: 449. Kb.


ABSTRACT

Scoping reviews arise from the need to synthesize evidence from a broader review objective than systematic reviews, but without losing its methodological rigor; they need a previously registered protocol, which includes search, inclusion, and exclusion criteria. They are characterized by reviewing broad contents responding to population- context-concept questions (PCC) focused on key concepts, specific methodologies, and knowledge gaps, with heterogeneous sources of information (randomized clinical trials, observational studies, blogs, websites, interviews, opinions, congresses, qualitative methodology studies, and others) and present as a final product an informative synthesis of all the collected evidence. In addition to their value in mapping emerging areas of knowledge, scoping reviews are useful in academic work because they allow building the background and theoretical framework for the development of a study (thesis, research project), as well as the identification of gaps that lead to new research questions and the development of original studies or systematic reviews.


REFERENCES

  1. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Ghassemi M, Nincic V, Lillie E, PageMJ, et al. Same family, different species: methodologicalconduct and quality varies according to purpose for fivetypes of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:133-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.014

  2. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, HoffmannTC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: anupdated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ.2021;n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

  3. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H,Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews(PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med.2018;169(7):467-73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850

  4. Demiris G, Oliver DP, Washington KT. Defining andAnalyzing the Problem. En: Demiris G, Oliver DP, WashingtonKT, editores. Behavioral Intervention Research inHospice and Palliative Care [Internet]. Chennai, India:Elsevier; 2019 [citado 16 de enero de 2022]. p. 27-39. Disponibleen: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B978012814449700003X

  5. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A,Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidancefor authors when choosing between a systematic orscoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

  6. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodologicalframework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32.doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616

  7. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancingthe methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

  8. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Trico A,Khalil H. Scoping Reviews. En: Aromataris E, Munn Z,editores. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [Internet].Adelaide, Australia: JBI; 2020 [citado 21 de diciembre de2021]. Disponible en: https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews

  9. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H,Kastner M, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reportingof scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

  10. MacPherson M, Cranston K, Locke S, Vis-Dunbar M, JungME. Diet and exercise interventions for individuals at riskfor type 2 diabetes: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open.2020;10(11):e039532. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039532

  11. Shirani F, Salehi-Abargouei A, Azadbakht L. Effects of DietaryApproaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet onsome risk for developing type 2 diabetes: a systematic reviewand meta-analysis on controlled clinical trials. Nutrition.2013;29(7-8):939-47. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2012.12.021

  12. Prahladh S, van Wyk J. Protocol for a scoping review ofthe current data practices in forensic medicine. Syst Rev.2020;9(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01308-7

  13. Chambergo-Michilot D, Diaz-Barrera ME, Benites-ZapataVA. Revisiones de alcance, revisiones paraguas y síntesis enfocadaen revisión de mapas: aspectos metodológicos y aplicaciones.Rev Perú Med Exp Salud Pública. 2021;38(1):136-42. doi: 10.17843/rpmesp.2021.381.6501

  14. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registrationof systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):7.doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-7

  15. Augie BM, McInerney PA, van Zyl RL, Miot J. Educationalantimicrobial stewardship programs in medical schools: ascoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(5):1028-35.doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00142

  16. Hagaman A, Rhodes EC, Nyhan K, Katague M, SchwartzA, Spiegelman D. How are qualitative methods used inimplementation science research? A scoping review protocol.JBI Evid Synth. 2020;19(6):1344-53. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00120

  17. Yamakawa M, Sung H-C, Tungpunkom P. Virtual realityeducation for dementia care: a scoping review protocol.JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(9):2075-81. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIRD-19-00230

  18. Santos GC, Liljeroos M, Dwyer AA, Jaques C, Girard J, StrömbergA, et al. Symptom perception in heart failure: a scopingreview on definition, factors and instruments. Eur J CardiovascNurs. 2020;19(2):100-17. doi: 10.1177/1474515119892797

  19. Codina L. Scoping reviews: características, frameworks principalesy uso en trabajos académicos [Internet]. Lluis Codina. 2021 [citado 28 de diciembre de 2021]. Disponible en:https://www.lluiscodina.com/scoping-reviews-guia/

  20. Ruiz-Perez I, Petrova D. Revisiones panorámicas. Otra formade revisión de la literatura. Med Clin (Barc). 2019;153(4):165-8. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2019.02.006




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com