Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
复制
发表时间：
2018-11-19
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Aromataris E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Munn Z;Peters MDJ;Stern C;Tufanaru C;McArthur A;Aromataris E
范围评价是一种相对较新的证据合成方法，目前在合成证据时，关于选择系统评价方法还是范围评价方法的指导很少。本文的目的是清楚地描述范围审查和系统审查之间适应症的差异，并为何时进行范围审查是合适的（或不合适的）提供指导。如果综述的目的是确定知识差距、确定文献的范围、澄清概念或调查研究行为，研究人员可以进行范围界定综述而不是系统综述。虽然范围审查本身是有用的，但它也可能是系统审查的有益先导，并可用于确认纳入标准和潜在问题的相关性。在不断增加的证据合成方法中，范围审查是一个有用的工具。尽管与系统审查相比，进行范围审查的目的不同，但范围审查仍然需要严格和透明的方法来确保结果是值得信赖的。我们的希望是，有了关于是否进行范围评价或系统评价的明确指导，将会有更少的针对不适当适应症的范围评价被系统评价更好地服务，反之亦然。
Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Callary SA;Solomon LB;Holubowycz OT;Campbell DG;Munn Z;Howie DW
通讯作者：
Howie DW
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Armstrong, Rebecca;Hall, Belinda J.;Waters, Elizabeth
通讯作者：
Waters, Elizabeth
影响因子：
6.6
作者：
Chambers, Duncan;Wilson, Paul M.;Light, Kate
通讯作者：
Light, Kate
DOI：
10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
发表时间：
2010-07-19
期刊：
Implementation science : IS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Ganann R;Ciliska D;Thomas H
通讯作者：
Thomas H
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
GIBSON, CH
通讯作者：
GIBSON, CH