AI evidence extraction

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews

Micah D.J. Peters, Christina Godfrey, Hanan Khalil, Patricia McInerney, Deborah Parker, Cássia Baldini Soares · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · 2015

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

7/10

Relevance

0/4

Quality (LMQS)

Evidence

7,472

Citations

93.68

FWCI

Top 10%

Impact

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050

Methodology & findings

Study design

Methodological guidance and narrative synthesis.

Main result

The paper establishes that "scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field" and notes that "scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence."

Research paradigm

Interpretivist/Hermeneutic

Author conclusions

The authors conclude that "scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review" and "may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research."

Risk of bias

Institutional bias: Methodology developed solely by Joanna Briggs Institute members and affiliated centres; Scope limitation: Guidance focused on reconnaissance rather than comprehensive synthesis; Heterogeneity: Acknowledges that scoping reviews address topics with 'complex or heterogeneous nature', which may affect consistency of application

Open questions raised

The paper identifies that scoping reviews are useful for identifying research gaps and making recommendations for future research, though it does not specify particular gaps within the scoping review methodology itself in the abstract.
The paper identifies that scoping reviews are useful for identifying research gaps and making recommendations for future research directions within topic areas that have not yet been comprehensively reviewed or are heterogeneous in nature.
Scoping reviews are identified as useful for situations where "a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed" and for identifying research gaps to make recommendations for future research.
The paper identifies that scoping reviews are particularly needed when "a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review," and notes their utility for identifying research gaps.
The paper identifies that scoping reviews are useful to "identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research," indicating gaps in existing literature and directing future investigation.
The paper identifies that scoping reviews are useful for identifying research gaps and making recommendations for future research, particularly in areas where literature has not been comprehensively reviewed or exhibits complex heterogeneous characteristics.

Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 82%

Explore related topics

Systematic Review Automation Literature Discovery Conceptual