Systematic Review vs Scoping Review: Scoping Review with ☸️SAIMSARA.

SAIMSARA

Reference Index (64)

[1] Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach — https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
[4] Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02592-3
[6] How Delphi studies in the health sciences find consensus: a scoping review — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02738-3
[11] Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: a scoping review protocol — https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-24-00308
[22] Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: A scoping review — https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1635
[31] Tools to support the automation of systematic reviews: A scoping review. — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.005
[50] Defining Rapid Reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041
[52] Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review. — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019
[63] Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8
[95] Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations — https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9
[112] Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review — https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82
[114] Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0
[120] The “realist search”: A systematic scoping review of current practice and reporting — https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1386
[124] How to write a scoping review? — https://doi.org/10.4103/ijamr.ijamr_91_23
[125] Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics — https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14743
[155] Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews — https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-20-00167
[159] A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane — https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0049-4
[220] Methodological guidance for rapid reviews in healthcare: A scoping review — https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1555
[232] Systematic and scoping reviews: A comparison and overview. — https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.09.001
[252] Practical guidance for knowledge synthesis: Scoping Review Methods. — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2019.11.002
[261] Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01509-0
[268] A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005
[276] Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review — https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0764-6
[279] A scoping review of rapid review methods — https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
[286] Cochrane Update. 'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review. — https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdr015
[287] All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7
[293] Scoping Meta‐Review: Introducing a New Methodology — https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12188
[298] What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review — https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-114
[299] Methodische Anleitung für Scoping Reviews (JBI-Methodologie) — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2019.05.004
[304] Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews — https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819619841647
[308] Knowledge Syntheses in Medical Education: Demystifying Scoping Reviews — https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001452
[333] An Evidence-Based Checklist for Improving Scoping Review Quality — https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773819846024
[334] What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0367-5
[336] A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030
[345] Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3
[357] Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
[373] How methodological frameworks are being developed: evidence from a scoping review — https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01061-4
[405] Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods — https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae232
[411] A scoping approach to systematically review published reviews: Adaptations and recommendations — https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1272
[468] Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review — https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019703
[473] Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1—purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0617-1
[477] Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework — https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
[481] SWIFT-Review: a text-mining workbench for systematic review — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0263-z
[482] Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies — https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06122-y
[485] Scoping reviews and rapid reviews — https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2021.1964095
[490] ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
[494] Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation — https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-0897-3
[495] Conducting comprehensive scoping reviews to systematically capture the landscape of a subject matter — https://doi.org/10.18332/popmed/143831
[496] Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01635-3
[507] A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6
[511] Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions — https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15
[517] The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations — https://doi.org/10.7326/m14-2385
[535] The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews — https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-2
[542] AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 2: defining complexity, formulating scope, and questions. — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.012
[557] Experiences using systematic review guidelines — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.046
[571] Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews — https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2
[585] Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4
[586] The Global Evidence Mapping Initiative: Scoping research in broad topic areas — https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-92
[589] Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health — https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-114
[591] Evidence maps and evidence gaps: evidence review mapping as a method for collating and appraising evidence reviews to inform research and policy — https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017-0096-9
[594] Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: a case study in systematic reviews of health care professional reminders. — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.012
[595] Ethics in systematic reviews — https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.039941
[598] Health outcomes of non-nutritive sweeteners: analysis of the research landscape — https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-017-0278-x
[599] The Relation between Systematic Reviews and Practice Guidelines — https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-3-199708010-00006

Systematic Review vs Scoping Review: Scoping Review with ☸️SAIMSARA.

DOI: 10.62487/saimsara32ffe7cd

Get access to the full paper