Evidence Synthesis in the Social Sciences

Definition and Purpose:

A scoping review is one of the various methods used in evidence synthesis. Unlike systematic reviews, it does not aim to answer a specific question to guide decision-making. Its primary goal is to provide an overview of the available research evidence. Reasons you might conduct a scoping review are: 

1. Map the Scope of Research: Identify the extent of research conducted on a particular topic.
2. Evaluate the Need for a Systematic Review: Determine if conducting a full systematic review is warranted.
3. Summarize Existing Evidence: Provide a comprehensive synthesis of the current research.
4. Identify Research Gaps: Highlight areas where additional research is needed.

Limitations of scoping reviews: 

• Scoping reviews do not typically include a risk of bias assessment. The "key difference between scoping reviews and systematic reviews is that the former are generally conducted to provide an overview of the existing evidence regardless of methodological quality or risk of bias (4,5). Therefore, the included sources of evidence are typically not critically appraised for scoping reviews." Source: Tricco, et al., PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. See the full article for more methodology guidelines specific to scoping reviews. 
• They often prioritize breadth over depth, which may limit detailed exploration of specific topics.

Resources: 

• PRISMA Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist
• Protocol Template from JBI 
• Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Scoping Reviews (2020). Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.  https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-09 
• Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews: Pollock, D., Peters, M. D., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., ... & Munn, Z. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI evidence synthesis, 21(3), 520-532.
• Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 

Tips:

• Protocols: Registered protocols are not accepted in Prospero for scoping reviews 
  • Open Science Framework

    OSF is the most common platform for depositing protocols for scoping reviews. OSF is entirely free to use.

  • How to Create a Preregistration in OSF

    This page breaks down the step-by-step process of registering your protocol in OSF.

  • Some journals accept scoping review protocols for publication. Review the journal's guidelines for publishing scoping review protocols on its official website to ensure your submission meets its criteria.

• Construct a clear and meaningful title for your scoping review: Per JBI's Scoping Review Manual: "The 'PCC' mnemonic is recommended as a guide to construct a clear and meaningful title for a scoping review. The PCC mnemonic stands for the Population, Concept, and Context. There is no need for explicit outcomes, interventions, or phenomena of interest to be stated for a scoping review; however, elements of each of these may be implicit in the concept under examination.

Decision tree for selecting scoping review methodology

1. Start: A synthesis of evidence (literature review) is being considered. Should it be a scoping review (ScR)

   If NO → A ScR may not be the most appropriate methodology for this review. Consider a different type of literature review (e.g., systematic review).

   If YES → Continue to step 2.

2. Purpose of the evidence synthesis: Is the purpose of the evidence synthesis to any of the following?

   a) Inform the development of a systematic review.
   b) Identify the types of available evidence in a given field.
   c) Identify and analyse knowledge gaps.
   d) Clarify key concepts or definitions in the literature.
   e) Examine how research is conducted on a certain topic or field.
   f) Identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept.

   If NO → A ScR may not be the most appropriate methodology for this review. Consider a different type of literature review (e.g., systematic review).

   If YES → Continue to step 3.

3. Intent of the review: Is it the intent to use the results to develop a clinical guideline or to inform practice or policy?

   If YES → A ScR should not be conducted. Consider using a systematic evidence synthesis methodology.

   If NO → Continue to step 4.

4. Check for existing reviews: Has a synthesis of evidence or review protocol already been registered or conducted in this area of interest? 

   (Check Google Scholar, JBI Evidence Synthesis, Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, PubMed, and PROSPERO.)

   If NO → Proceed with developing a ScR protocol using the JBI ScR conduct guidance and the PRISMA-ScR extension for reporting.

   If YES → Continue to step 5.

5. Evaluate differences or time since previous review: Is there a significant point of difference between the proposed evidence synthesis and the existing one, or has a significant period of time passed since the previous synthesis was conducted?

   If YES → Proceed with developing a ScR protocol using the JBI ScR conduct guidance and the PRISMA-ScR extension for reporting.

   If NO → Another evidence synthesis on this subject is likely not required. If the previous review was a ScR, consider developing a systematic review protocol.