Summary
Highlights
A scoping review is a study that aims to explore, evaluate, and identify key concepts of a theme. It assesses the dimension, scope, and nature of a study, condensing and publishing data to highlight existing research gaps. It synthesizes and summarizes research evidence to map existing literature and determine if a full systematic review is necessary. Both scoping and systematic reviews follow a strict protocol for scientific publication.
Scoping reviews are crucial for embedding a research theme within a broader theoretical framework, building upon existing knowledge, and identifying literature gaps to provide justification for novelty in research. It helps researchers, especially doctoral students and early-career researchers, familiarize themselves with existing literature on a given subject, thus improving justifications and identifying gaps.
The video introduces a protocol for scoping reviews, emphasizing the importance of following best practices for report items. This protocol, presented in an article, outlines elements like abstract, objectives, introduction, methods, and conclusion, ensuring methodological rigor and acceptance in scientific communities. It highlights that the scoping review is widely accepted in scientific contexts and provides an overview of emergent or under-researched fields.
The video presents a table comparing the protocol items for scoping reviews versus systematic reviews and meta-analysis checklists. For scoping reviews, it details sections including title, authors, support sources, introduction with objectives and justification, and methodology covering eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, study selection, data collection, and data items. The rigorous protocol acts as a checklist for reviewers.
The video emphasizes the mandatory items required in a scoping review protocol for an article to be accepted. These include clear identification, author details, support, introduction with justification and clear objectives, and a detailed methodology. The methodology specifies eligibility criteria (e.g., years, language, publication status), information sources (databases, dates), search strategies, and study selection processes.
An example article titled 'Scenario of scientific publication in the last 5 years on palliative care in oncology: Scoping Review' is used to demonstrate the application of the scoping review protocol. The author explicitly includes 'scoping review' in the title. The introduction addresses the justification for the review and clearly states the objectives, aligning with the PCC (Problem, Concept, Context) framework.
The method section of the example article illustrates the protocol in action. It details the use of a mixed-methods investigation synthesis, integrating the PCC methodology to guide data collection. It defines the problem (characterization of scientific publications), concept (palliative care), and context. It then outlines the research question, eligibility criteria (e.g., 5-year publication window, English, Portuguese, Spanish languages), and exclusion criteria (e.g., incomplete articles, paid articles, project-phase studies).
The example article describes its search strategy, including the specific database (Medline/PubMed) and the keywords used, along with logical operators. It details a four-stage selection process: constructing search chains, applying filters (e.g., free full text, language, publication date), review by two independent reviewers of abstracts/introductions/conclusions, and full-text reading of pre-selected articles to verify relevance and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Finally, relevant data is extracted for analysis.
The results section explains how to present the number of studies identified, screened, and included, ideally using a flowchart like the PRISMA diagram. The example shows an initial search yielding over 42,000 articles, which are then systematically reduced through duplication removal, title/keyword screening, abstract/introduction/conclusion review, and full-text analysis, leading to 341 included articles. It analyses characteristics like language (predominantly English), annual production, study types (cohort studies being most frequent), and author professions (doctors and nurses being most prolific).
The discussion section entails summarizing key findings and comparing them with existing literature, aligning with the review's objectives. It highlights the significant number of articles but notes limited strong evidence, indicating a gap for rigorous methodological studies. The example discusses the predominance of certain professional categories in publications. The conclusion provides an overall interpretation of the results, linking back to the review questions and suggesting implications for future research, such as the need for interventional and multidisciplinary studies with stronger methodological rigor.