Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Scoping Reviews and Systematic Reviews: Is It an Either/Or Question?

2018; American College of Physicians; Volume: 169; Issue: 7 Linguagem: Inglês

10.7326/m18-2205

1539-3704

Stephanie Chang,

Delphi Technique in Research

Editorials2 October 2018Scoping Reviews and Systematic Reviews: Is It an Either/Or Question?Stephanie Chang, MD, MPHStephanie Chang, MD, MPHAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland (S.C.)Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2205 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail What has always bothered me about the term "scoping review" is that, despite a clear role in knowledge synthesis, the name alone implies that it is not a systematic review. A systematic review has a clear definition and methods. Ascribing a different name to scoping reviews implies that they do not meet the definition of a systematic review. Although many groups have published on methods, without universally agreed-on standards for what constitutes a scoping review, regional variation and individual interpretation allow for a wide range of methods and approaches. An article in this issue may begin to change this.Using ...References1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217. [PMID: 20169112] doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. 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;169:467-73. doi:10.7326/M18-0850 LinkGoogle Scholar3. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W65-W94. [PMID: 19622512] LinkGoogle Scholar4. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:491-501. [PMID: 19540721] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.008 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Eder M, Feightner A, Webber E, Guirguis-Blake J, Whitlock E. Developing and Selecting Topic Nominations for Systematic Reviews. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ publication no. 12(13)-EHC153-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; November 2012. Accessed at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/methods-guidance-topic-nomination/methods on 15 August 2018. Google Scholar6. Chou R, Korthuis PT, Weimer M, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Zakher B, et al. Medication-Assisted Treatment Models of Care for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care Settings. Technical brief no. 28. (Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2015-00009-I.) AHRQ publication no. 16(17)-EHC039-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; December 2016. Accessed at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/opioid-use-disorder/technical-brief on 15 August 2018. Google Scholar7. Totten AM, Womack DM, Eden KB, McDonagh MS, Griffin JC, Grusing S, et al. Telehealth: Mapping the Evidence for Patient Outcomes From Systematic Reviews. Technical brief no. 26. (Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2015-00009-I.) AHRQ publication no. 16-EHC034-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2016. Accessed at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/telehealth/technical-brief on 15 August 2018. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland (S.C.)Disclosures: The author has disclosed no conflicts of interest. The form can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M18-2205.Corresponding Author: Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; e-mail, stephanie.[email protected]hhs.gov.This article was published at Annals.org on 4 September 2018. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoPRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation Andrea C. Tricco , Erin Lillie , Wasifa Zarin , Kelly K. O'Brien , Heather Colquhoun , Danielle Levac , David Moher , Micah D.J. Peters , Tanya Horsley , Laura Weeks , Susanne Hempel , Elie A. Akl , Christine Chang , Jessie McGowan , Lesley Stewart , Lisa Hartling , Adrian Aldcroft , Michael G. Wilson , Chantelle Garritty , Simon Lewin , Christina M. Godfrey , Marilyn T. Macdonald , Etienne V. Langlois , Karla Soares-Weiser , Jo Moriarty , Tammy Clifford , Özge Tunçalp , and Sharon E. Straus Metrics Cited byThe effect of audio on the experience in virtual reality: a scoping reviewCerebrospinal fluid findings of infant tuberculous meningitis: a scoping reviewHow missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trialsNursing Home-Sensitive Hospitalizations and the Relevance of Telemedicine: A Scoping ReviewIntimate Partner Violence Among Sexual Minority Women: A Scoping ReviewA SCOPING REVIEW OF THE RANGIFER TARANDUS INFECTIOUS DISEASE LITERATURE: GAP BETWEEN INFORMATION AND APPLICATIONPotential impacts of climate, land use and land cover changes on hydropower generation in West Africa: a reviewCharacterization of the Clinical Evidence Supporting Repository Corticotropin Injection for FDA-Approved IndicationsWorkplace productivity loss as a result of absenteeism and presenteeism in chronic and episodic migraine: a scoping reviewA scoping review of research on school-based outdoor education in the Nordic countriesCosts and Economic Impacts of Physician Continuous Professional Development: A Systematic Scoping ReviewBarriers and facilitators to attending dental care appointments among adults in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocolHave (R)-[11C]PK11195 challengers fulfilled the promise? A scoping review of clinical TSPO PET studiesExploring the contribution of housing adaptations in supporting everyday life for people with dementia: a scoping reviewThe impact of school gardens on youth social and emotional learning: a scoping reviewContextualising clinical reasoning within the clinical swallow evaluation: A scoping review and expert consultationFood Insecurity in US Military VeteransWhat is known about the protective factors that promote LGBTI+ youth wellbeing? A scoping review protocolCraving and opioid use disorder: A scoping reviewWhat Does Head Impulse Testing Really Test?—ReplyHealth-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity: the protocol for an evidence mapEvaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Head-Impulse Test 2 October 2018Volume 169, Issue 7Page: 502-503KeywordsEvidence based medicineHealth care qualityHealth services researchInformation technologyOpioid use disorderResearch designResearch quality assessmentResearch reporting guidelinesSystematic reviewsTelemedicine ePublished: 4 September 2018 Issue Published: 2 October 2018 PDF downloadLoading ...