What's the difference between a systematic review and a scoping review?
Answer
Both systematic reviews and scoping reviews are types of knowledge synthesis and follow a rigorous and reproducible methodology.
Systematic reviews ask a focused research question with narrow parameters, and usually fit into the PICO question format. The process is generally linear, with the data collected using a comprehensive literature search in multiple bibliographic databases, followed by screening by 2 or more reviewers using detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria, an assessment of the quality and bias of included studies and a synthesis of the findings. A meta-analysis may be conducted if the included studies are homogenous enough.
Scoping reviews ask a broad research question that looks at answering larger, more complex, exploratory research questions that often do not fit into the PICO question format. The process can be iterative, with the data collected using a comprehensive literature search that is first conducted in 1-2 bibliographic databases and an initial screening. This initial screening can allow for changes to be made to the question, the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the search strategy. The final search is then translated to the other databases, followed by a second screening. An assessment of the quality and bias of included studies can be done but is not required.
Find out more about knowledge synthesis on our detailed guide.