Scoping reviews: a new way of evidence synthesis

Abstract

Scoping reviews arise from the need to synthesize evidence from a broader review objective than systematic reviews, but without losing its methodological rigor; they need a previously registered protocol, which includes search, inclusion, and exclusion criteria. They are characterized by reviewing broad contents responding to population-context-concept questions (PCC) focused on key concepts, specific methodologies, and knowledge gaps, with heterogeneous sources of information (randomized clinical trials, observational studies, blogs, websites, interviews, opinions, congresses, qualitative methodology studies, and others) and present as a final product an informative synthesis of all the collected evidence. In addition to their value in mapping emerging areas of knowledge, scoping reviews are useful in academic work because they allow building the background and theoretical framework for the development of a study (thesis, research project), as well as the identification of gaps that lead to new research questions and the development of original studies or systematic reviews.