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.

The image is a flowchart titled "Decision tree for selecting scoping review methodology" on a light blue background. The top left features the JBI logo. The decision tree begins with the question "A synthesis of evidence (literature review) is being considered: should it be a scoping review (ScR)?" Encased in a blue box, it leads to a "YES" arrow directing to a larger blue box with text outlining various purposes for evidence synthesis, such as informing systematic reviews and identifying gaps. An affirmative response leads right, exploring if the intent is to develop clinical guidelines or informing practice, which ultimately recommends a "systematic evidence synthesis methodology" if true.

The flow progresses with questions about existing reviews or protocols in the same area, leading to different paths distinguished by blue and orange boxes. If a previous review or protocol exists, it queries differences or time lapse for continuation, eventually suggesting to "proceed with developing an ScR protocol" if necessary. An orange box advises considering another review type if an ScR isn't appropriate. Various arrows point to outcomes based on the responses to flowchart questions, helping guide the selection of the appropriate review methodology.