--- title: "10.1.3 The purpose of scoping reviews" canonical: "https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355862599/10.1.3%20The%20purpose%20of%20scoping%20reviews" format: markdown --- The JBI Scoping Review Methodology group has identified six indications for when a scoping review would be the most appropriate form of evidence synthesis (Munn et al. 2018). However, we acknowledge that there may be overlap for some of these indications with other types of evidence synthesis. Identify the types of available evidence in a field Scoping reviews facilitate the identification of the types of available evidence and research gaps in a field based on a methodologically robust and transparent process. ‘Types’ here refers to categories or classifications that are used to organise evidence based on certain characteristics or criteria. They provide an overview of a field and can reduce research waste by identifying the evidence that exists and eliminating duplication of research effort. This type of scoping review can inform priorities for a subsequent systematic review (or reviews), inform guideline priorities and suggest potential questions or topics for further investigation or research. A full systematic review is not explicitly identified as the next step. Example: Objective: ‘to chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research’ (Tricco et al. 2023b). In this scoping review, 562 articles were included, with study designs ranging from observational to mixed methods, quasi-experimental and experimental. Although a potential goal was to use the scoping review results to inform a future systematic review, this was not explicitly stated in the paper (Tricco et al. 2023b).   Clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature Scoping reviews can investigate and clarify concepts and definitions, and how they are used within and across fields. Example: Objective: ‘to understand how absorptive capacity was conceptualised and measured in health care organisations’ (Godfrey et al. 2023). In this scoping review, the definitions of the concept ‘absorptive capacity’ were clarified and elaborated upon (Godfrey et al. 2023).   Examine how research has been conducted and reported on a certain topic or within a field Scoping reviews can be used in this way to provide clearer insight into not only what previous work has been performed but also the specifics of how it was conducted. In this way, they can inform how future research should or could be conducted in terms of specific methodological choices, such as decisions around outcomes and their measurement, data collection techniques, unique solutions and more. By investigating these specifics, future research can be conducted in line with previous efforts, resulting in more consistency (or harmonisation) of approaches, which will facilitate future comparisons or synthesis. Additionally, where it is identified that there are substantial differences in how research has been conducted, the scoping review might lead to the development of guidance, standards or principles for future work (such as core outcome set development, risk-of-bias tools, reporting standards or methods guidance). Example: Objective: ‘to describe methods used to combine randomized and nonrandomized evidence (NRE) in network meta-analyses (NMAs) and their respective characteristics’ (Zhang et al. 2019). The purpose was to map the studies that examined these methods and chart their characteristics over time (Zhang et al. 2019). Identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept These scoping reviews can provide useful information to inform the development of conceptual frameworks, increase understanding of a concept or aid hypothesis generation. Example: Objective: to identify and synthesise existing conceptual models, frameworks and definitions of physician caring (Burstein et al. 2022). In this scoping review, the authors identified six aspects of physician caring: relational aspects, technical aspects, physician attitudes and characteristics, agency, reciprocity and physician self-care (Burstein et al. 2022). Act as a precursor to a systematic review Scoping reviews can be a useful ‘first stage’ of a two-stage evidence synthesis project. These scoping reviews may map the evidence to provide insight into what more specific questions could be posed as well as what further research (both primary and secondary) should or could be undertaken. In 2014, Pham et al. reported that only around 6% of existing scoping reviews were of this kind (Pham et al. 2014). Tricco et al ., meanwhile, identified that 11% of the 494 scoping reviews sampled noted conducting a scoping review prior to a systematic review (Tricco et al. 2016). Examples: A scoping review explored psychosocial interventions targeting adult cancer survivors’ reintegration following active cancer treatment, and found that most studies were qualitative, thus identifying a need for future research to include a qualitative systematic review and meta-aggregation (Murnaghan et al. 2024). To give another example, a recent mixed methods evidence synthesis project incorporated an initial scoping review to explore exercise interventions for tendinopathy, intended to inform subsequent systematic reviews (Alexander et al. 2022). Identify and analyse knowledge gaps A presentation of what has not yet been investigated or reported generally requires an exhaustive examination of all available literature. Scoping reviews are typically designed with the objective of identifying, characterising and summarising the evidence on a given topic; however, it is possible to apply scoping reviews in ways that focus on identifying the research gaps. Example: A scoping review identified knowledge gaps in the area of occupational balance (Wagman et al. 2015). For instance, it found that many of the studies were conducted in Sweden and Canada, which meant that the understanding of occupational balance was specific to Western thinking. Furthermore, the review identified a need for more research to be conducted on younger and older populations. Another knowledge gap identified was that all the studies reported measuring occupational balance through different approaches (Wagman et al. 2015). Additionally, scoping reviews have been identified as a valuable tool for identifying research priorities and developing guidelines.