A scoping review is a literature review that aims to provide a preliminary assessment of the size and scope of the available research literature.
It offers a clear overview of a field’s breadth (and sometimes depth) without necessarily delving into the details of individual study quality or aggregating results.
Think of it as a way to map the existing literature on a topic to identify gaps, trends, and the volume of available research.
Title: Telemedicine in the Management of Chronic Diseases: A Scoping Review
Objective: To provide an overview of the current state of research on the application and effectiveness of telemedicine for managing chronic diseases.
Methods:
Results:
Total Identified Records: 1,200
Total Included Records: 150
Types of Chronic Diseases Studied:
Types of Telemedicine Tools Used:
Reported Outcomes:
Discussion:
General Observations: The majority of the studies reported positive outcomes associated with the use of telemedicine for managing chronic diseases. Diabetes and hypertension were the most commonly studied conditions.
Knowledge Gaps: Few studies addressed the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine tools. There was also limited research on patient satisfaction and the integration of telemedicine into primary care workflows.
Conclusion: Telemedicine appears promising in the management of chronic diseases, especially diabetes and hypertension. Future research should address the identified knowledge gaps and explore other chronic conditions not yet studied extensively.
Here are the characteristics of a scoping review.
There are several reasons a researcher might choose to conduct a scoping review:
For conducting and analysing health and social science topics, the JBI scoping review method developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute is used. This method offers robust standards for conducting and reporting high-quality scoping reviews.
Writing a scoping review requires a clear understanding of the methodology, which involves the systematic search, selection, and charting of literature to clarify topics, identify knowledge gaps, and inform future research or policy direction across broad subject areas.
Here are the steps typically involved in conducting a scoping review:
This is often broader in nature for scoping reviews than for systematic reviews. For example, “What interventions have been studied for the treatment of X condition?” rather than “Is treatment A more effective than treatment B for condition X?” This will also help you to develop an effective research strategy.
Clearly define which studies will be included or excluded based on specific factors such as publication date, study type, population, and outcomes.
This involves extracting relevant information from the included studies and managing sources.
Create a data charting form to capture information on study design, population, intervention, outcomes, and key findings.
Engage stakeholders (e.g., experts, patients, policymakers) to provide insights or feedback on the preliminary results.
This can add depth and relevance to the findings.
Discuss the main findings, their implications, and any potential gaps in the literature. This can guide future research efforts.
Acknowledge any limitations of your scoping review, such as publication bias or the exclusion of non-English articles.
Sum up the key points from your review, the current state of the literature on the topic, and potential directions for future research.
Follow all the scoping review guidelines, which recommend structured approaches for searching, selecting, and presenting evidence. This will ensure transparency and rigour.
Moreover, it will help you, as a researcher, produce comprehensive and reproducible literature mapping.
For this purpose, scoping review templates are also available on the market that outline sections from objectives to methodology and analysis, supporting authors in systematically organising and reporting their literature mapping process.
| Feature | Scoping Review | Narrative Review | Systematic Review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose | A scoping review maps the breadth of existing literature. Its main goal is to identify key concepts, types of evidence, and research gaps without detailed quality appraisal. | A narrative review provides a descriptive summary of existing knowledge and theoretical insights but lacks a systematic methodology. | A systematic review critically assesses and synthesises research findings using predefined criteria to ensure evidence quality and minimise bias. |
| Approach | Exploratory and broad, focusing on mapping rather than evaluating evidence. | Descriptive and flexible, guided by the author’s perspective and interpretation. | Rigorous, protocol-driven, and focused on answering a specific research question. |
| Outcome | Identifies research trends, themes, and gaps for future study. | Provides contextual and theoretical understanding of a topic. | Generates evidence-based, reproducible, and transparent conclusions. |
To illustrate the utility and diversity of scoping reviews, let us delve into some real-world examples:
A researcher might conduct a scoping review to explore the types and features of mental health apps available in app stores, understanding their functionalities, target audiences, and underlying psychological theories.
Given the rapid advancements in VR technology, a scoping review may be conducted to assess how VR is being utilised in educational settings, the subjects to which it is being applied, and the outcomes of such interventions.
As sustainability becomes a hot topic, researchers may want to understand how small businesses are implementing sustainable practices, the challenges they face, and the range of reported outcomes.
To understand the landscape of evolving dietary trends, a scoping review could be conducted to identify popular diets, their nutritional implications, and their long-term health impact.
A scoping review is a type of research synthesis that aims to map the key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in a specific research area. Unlike systematic reviews, which assess the quality and synthesise findings of studies, scoping reviews provide an overview of the existing literature regardless of study quality.
A scoping review maps key concepts, evidence types, and research gaps without appraising study quality. It provides an overview of existing literature in a field. A systematic review, on the other hand, rigorously assesses and synthesises findings from selected studies based on predefined criteria, ensuring a high level of evidence quality.
Yes, a scoping review is a research methodology used to provide a preliminary assessment of the size and scope of available research literature. It maps key concepts, sources, and gaps without necessarily delving deep into quality appraisal. The process is systematic, ensuring a broad overview of the topic in question.
A scoping review maps the breadth of literature, identifying key concepts and research gaps without detailed quality appraisal. A narrative review offers a descriptive summary of topics, often lacking systematic methods. A systematic review rigorously assesses and synthesises research findings based on predefined criteria, ensuring evidence quality and reducing bias.
No, a scoping review and meta-analysis are distinct. A scoping review maps the literature, identifying key concepts and gaps, without a detailed quality appraisal. A meta-analysis is a statistical method used in systematic reviews to combine and analyse quantitative results from multiple studies to produce a single summary effect size.
A scoping review can include both qualitative and quantitative studies; it depends on the researcher’s objective. The primary purpose of the review is to explore the breadth and depth of evidence on a topic, making it more inclusive and exploratory.
Yes, a scoping review can be peer-reviewed to ensure the quality, accuracy, and transparency of the research process before submission.
However, note that the review itself does not inherently involve peer review; for this, it must be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
No, a scoping review is not primary research; it is secondary research that involves collecting, organising, and synthesising existing literature, unlike primary research, which generates new data.
Its goal is to map what is known and identify gaps or areas needing further primary research.
You May Also Like
All work is written by human writers. 100% AI free, guaranteed.
100% money back guarantee if you find plagiarism in our work.
SERVICES
COMPANY DETAILS
+44 (0) 141 628 7445
+44 7388 619137
The money-back guarantee functions in accordance with our refund guidelines.
