On This Page:ToggleDifference in Research QuestionsDifference in Synthesis of FindingsHow to Choose the Best Review for your Research TopicKey Differences
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
Difference in Research Questions: Broad vs Narrow
The most fundamental difference between the research questions in scoping and systematic reviews is their breadth.
This distinction in research question scope is evident in the sources’ explanations and examples:
Scoping Review Question Examples:
Systematic Review Question Examples:
Scoping reviews, with their broad research questions, are beneficial when:
Systematic reviews are better suited for addressing well-defined clinical questions where the goal is to synthesize evidence to inform decision-making.
Difference in Synthesis of Findings: Descriptive vs Interpretative
The key element of reviews is the synthesis: that is the process that brings together the findings from the set of included studies in order to draw conclusions based on the body of evidence.
While both types of reviews involve collecting and summarizing data, systematic reviews aim to combine and analyze the results from different studies to answer the specific research question.
Scoping reviews
Scoping reviews provide a descriptive account of the available research, identifying key concepts, themes, and gaps in the existing knowledge base.
Data synthesis in a scoping review involves collating, combining, and summarizing findings from the included studies.
This categorization helps to make sense of a potentially large and diverse body of literature.
Systematic reviews
Systematic reviews provide a narrative synthesis that goes beyond simply summarizing individual studies.
By integrating and interpreting the available evidence in a systematic and transparent way, you aim to create a new understanding.
Interpreting results in context:
Drawing conclusions and implications:The final step involves summarizing the key findings and their implications for practice, policy, and future research. The conclusions should directly answer the research question, highlighting the strength of the evidence and any remaining uncertainties.
Meta-analysis:When appropriate, systematic reviews use statistical methods (meta-analysis) to combine the numerical results of similar studies, producing a pooled estimate of the intervention’s effect.
This quantitative synthesis allows for a more precise estimation of the effect size and helps address inconsistencies across individual studies.
How to Choose the Best Review for your Research Topic
TheCochrane Handbookstates that the primary factor in deciding between a systematic review and a scoping review is the authors’ intention:
Do they aim to use the review’s results to answer a clinically meaningful question or to inform practice?
A systematic review is recommended if the objective is to evaluate the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, or effectiveness of a treatment or practice.
For example, “Is treatment A more effective than treatment B for condition C in population D?”
The goal is to produce a comprehensive, unbiased summary of the available evidence that can be directly applied to clinical decision-making.
Systematic reviews can address various aspects of healthcare beyond just effectiveness, including patient experiences and economic considerations.
They are often the foundation for developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.
Conversely, a scoping review is suitable when the focus is on identifying and discussing specific characteristics or concepts within the literature rather than generating direct clinical or policy recommendations.
Scoping reviews can be an excellent way for postgraduate students to gain a broad understanding of a field or to identify potential areas for more in-depth research.
If a research area has inconsistent terminology or definitions, a scoping review can map out how different concepts are used and potentially propose a unified understanding. This can help refine the focus and scope of a subsequent systematic review.
Key Differences:
Scoping reviews often have broader, more exploratory objectives than the focused question(s) in systematic reviews.Scoping reviews map the available evidence, while systematic reviews synthesize and evaluate the evidence.Scoping reviews typically use narrative synthesis, while systematic reviews may include meta-analysis.Scoping reviews often identify research gaps, while systematic reviews focus on informing practice and policy.Unlike scoping reviews, systematic reviews aim to be exhaustive within their defined scope, capturing all relevant evidence on a particular question.Critical appraisal of individual studies is optional in scoping reviews but essential in systematic reviews.Scoping reviews can be used as a preliminary step to asystematic review, helping to identify the types of evidence available, potential research questions, and relevant inclusion criteria.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.
If the goal is to determine the effectiveness of an intervention:
Scoping reviews help identify areas needing further research, whereas systematic reviews aim to draw conclusions about intervention effectiveness.
Standardized Reporting Guidelines
ThePRISMA(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist is tailored for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
It consists of 27 items covering aspects such as the rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, search strategy, study selection process, data extraction methods, risk of bias assessment, data synthesis, and reporting of finding.
PRISMA helps researchers communicate their methods and findings more effectively, ultimately improving the reliability and usefulness of systematic reviews for informing healthcare decisions.
ThePRISMA-ScR(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist builds upon the PRISMA checklist but is specifically designed for reporting scoping reviews.
It includes 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.
References:
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. InternationalJournal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). (2001).Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews.York: University of York.
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors).Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventionsversion 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology.Implementation Science, 5(1), 69.
Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Khalil, H., Alexander, L., Mclnerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., … & Tricco, A. C. (2022).What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis.JBI evidence synthesis,20(4), 950-952.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
