Review Literature Means

Scoping reviews that seek to identify the types of evidence in a given field share similarities with evidence mapping activities as explained by Bragge and colleagues in a paper on conducting scoping research in broad topic areas . Chambers and colleagues conducted a scoping review in order to identify current knowledge translation resources that use, adapt and present findings from systematic reviews to suit the needs of policy makers. The authors concluded that evidence synthesists produce a range of resources to assist policy makers to transfer and utilize the findings of systematic reviews and that focussed summaries are the most common. Similarly, a scoping review was conducted by Challen and colleagues in order to determine the types of available evidence identifying the source and quality of publications and grey literature for emergency planning. A comprehensive set of databases and websites were investigated and 1603 relevant sources of evidence were identified mainly addressing emergency planning and response with fewer sources concerned with hazard analysis, mitigation and capability assessment.

Systematic reviews in healthcare began to appear in publication in the 1970s and 1980s . With the emergence of groups such as Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute in the 1990s , reviews have exploded in popularity both in terms of the number conducted , and their uptake to inform policy and practice. Today, systematic reviews are conducted for a wide range of purposes across diverse fields of inquiry, different evidence types and for different questions . Scoping reviews are now seen as a valid approach in those circumstances where systematic reviews are unable to meet the necessary objectives or requirements of knowledge users. There now exists clear guidance regarding the definition of scoping reviews, how to conduct scoping reviews and the steps involved in the scoping review process .

The purpose of this article is to provide practical guidance for reviewers on when to perform a systematic review or a scoping review, supported with some key examples. The interpretation, methodology and expectations of scoping are highly variable. This suggests that conceptually, scoping is a poorly defined ambiguous term. The distinction between scoping as an integral preliminary process in the development of a research proposal or a formative, methodologically rigorous activity in its own right has not been extensively examined. The aim of this review is to explore the nature and status of scoping studies within the nursing literature and develop a working definition to ensure consistency in the future use of scoping as a research related activity.

An explicit systematic search strategy included literary and web-based key word searches and advice from key researchers. Electronic sources included bibliographic and national research register databases and a general browser. The scoping studies varied widely in terms of intent, procedural and methodological rigor. An atheoretical stance was common although explicit conceptual clarification and development of a topic was limited. Four different levels of inquiry ranging from preliminary descriptive surveys to more substantive conceptual approaches were conceptualised. These levels reflected differing dimensional distinctions in which some activities constitute research whereas in others the scoping activities appear to fall outside the remit of research.

Reconnaissance emerges as a common synthesising construct to explain the purpose of scoping. Scoping studies in relation to nursing are embryonic and continue to evolve. Its main strengths lie in its ability to extract the essence of a diverse body of evidence giving it meaning and significance that is both developmental and intellectually creative.

As with other approaches to research and evidence synthesis a more standardized approach is required. In any case, because scoping reviews tend to be a useful approach for reviewing evidence rapidly in emerging fields or topics, identification and analysis of knowledge gaps is a common and valuable indication for conducting a scoping review. A scoping review was recently conducted to review current research and identify knowledge gaps on the topic of "occupational balance", or the balance of work, rest, sleep, and play .

As with other scoping reviews focussed upon identifying and analyzing knowledge gaps, results such as these allow for the identification of future research initiatives. Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Researchers may preference the conduct of a scoping review over a systematic review where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts, investigate research conduct, or to inform a systematic review.

Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa. As such, scoping reviews (which are also sometimes called scoping exercises/scoping studies) have emerged as a valid approach with rather different indications to those for systematic reviews. It is important to note here that other approaches to evidence synthesis have also emerged, including realist reviews, mixed methods reviews, concept analyses and others .

This article focuses specifically on the choice between a systematic review or scoping review approach. In keeping with scoping review methods we summarize and report on review findings, and identify current gaps in empirical research on this topic (Arksey and O'Malley 2005;Levac et al. 2010;Rumrill et al. 2010). We also acknowledge that the scoping review study findings might be used to determine the feasibility for conducting other types of systematic reviews on this topic in the future. Scoping reviews can be conducted to identify and examine characteristics or factors related to a particular concept.

Harfield and colleagues conducted a scoping review to identify the characteristics of indigenous primary healthcare service delivery models . A systematic search was conducted, followed by screening and study selection. Once relevant studies had been identified, a process of data extraction commenced to extract characteristics referred to in the included papers. The results of this scoping review have been able to inform a best practice model for indigenous primary healthcare services. Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct.

While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Unlike systematic reviews, scoping studies do not typically provide an assessment of the quality of the studies covered (Grant & Booth, 2009;Rumrill et al., 2010). Unlike narrative or literature reviews, they require analytical reinterpretation of the literature. Scoping literature review, as implied by its name is used to identify the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic. Rapid reviews are another emerging type of evidence synthesis and a substantial amount of literature have addressed these types of reviews .

As such, a rapid review could potentially be conducted for any of the indications listed above for the scoping or systematic review, whilst shortening or skipping entirely some steps in the standard systematic or scoping review process. Undertaking a review of the literature is an important part of any research project. The researcher both maps and assesses the relevant intellectual territory in order to specify a research question which will further develop the knowledge base.

Review Of Literature Meaning In English However, traditional 'narrative' reviews frequently lack thoroughness, and in many cases are not undertaken as genuine pieces of investigatory science. Consequently they can lack a means for making sense of what the collection of studies is saying. Furthermore, the use of reviews of the available evidence to provide insights and guidance for intervention into operational needs of practitioners and policymakers has largely been of secondary importance. For practitioners, making sense of a mass of often-contradictory evidence has become progressively harder. The quality of evidence underpinning decision-making and action has been questioned, for inadequate or incomplete evidence seriously impedes policy formulation and implementation.

In exploring ways in which evidence-informed management reviews might be achieved, the authors evaluate the process of systematic review used in the medical sciences. Over the last fifteen years, medical science has attempted to improve the review process by synthesizing research in a systematic, transparent, and reproducible manner with the twin aims of enhancing the knowledge base and informing policymaking and practice. This paper evaluates the extent to which the process of systematic review can be applied to the management field in order to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research. The paper highlights the challenges in developing an appropriate methodology.

It is, therefore, crucial to inform Russian-speaking audiences about the history and evolution of the ScR methodology, the stages and features of such a study, and relevant international guidelines. A PRISMA-ScR checklist has also been translated, taking into account recommendations for the translation of PRISMA documents. ScR published in pediatrics and related fields have also been analyzed and it has been noted that the evaluated authors did not sufficiently follow current guidelines for writing ScR. Scoping reviews are now seen as a valid review approach for certain indications. A key difference between scoping reviews and systematic reviews is that in terms of a review question, a scoping review will have a broader "scope" than traditional systematic reviews with correspondingly more expansive inclusion criteria.

In addition, scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews in their overriding purpose. We have previously recommended the use of the PCC mnemonic to guide question development . The importance of clearly defining the key questions and objectives of a scoping review has been discussed previously by one of the authors, as a lack of clarity can result in difficulties encountered later on in the review process .

As scoping reviews do not aim to produce a critically appraised and synthesised result/answer to a particular question, and rather aim to provide an overview or map of the evidence. Due to this, an assessment of methodological limitations or risk of bias of the evidence included within a scoping review is generally not performed . Given this assessment of bias is not conducted, the implications for practice that arise from a scoping review are quite different compared to those of a systematic review.

In some cases, there may be no need or impetus to make implications for practice and if there is a need to do so, these implications may be significantly limited in terms of providing concrete guidance from a clinical or policy making point of view. Conversely, when we compare this to systematic reviews, the provision of implications for practice is a key feature of systematic reviews and is recommended in reporting guidelines for systematic reviews . We propose that the most important consideration is whether or not the authors wish to use the results of their review to answer a clinically meaningful question or provide evidence to inform practice.

If the authors have a question addressing the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness or effectiveness of a certain treatment or practice, then a systematic review is likely the most valid approach . True to their name, scoping reviews are an ideal tool to determine the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature and studies available as well as an overview of its focus. Scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review . They can report on the types of evidence that address and inform practice in the field and the way the research has been conducted.

These reviews may be considered the pillar of evidence-based healthcare and are widely used to inform the development of trustworthy clinical guidelines . Falling from height is blamed for causing significant injuries and deaths on construction sites. Previous research has outlined a broad range of technological advances facilitating the management of the FFH safety risk. However, the extant literature lacks a comprehensive assessment to investigate the contribution of various FFH technologies, as well as their implementation feasibility on construction sites, which provides rationale for this study.

The study aims to assess recent safety technologies which can be used to control the risk of FFH on construction sites, especially in urban building construction projects. A scoping review was conducted to identify such technologies and provide insight into their application in the construction industry. As a result of searching Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases between 2010 and 2021, a total of 86 representative studies were selected and reviewed. Following this stage, an assessment of their feasibility was carried out based on a set of criteria from the literature. A total of 7 FFH technologies were identified, characterising the contribution of recent technologies to the prediction, prevention, and mitigation of FFH risks. This research contributes to an improved understanding of the status of FFH technologies.

The feasibility assessment provides insight into suitable technologies for construction projects of various sizes and features. Knowledge production within the field of business research is accelerating at a tremendous speed while at the same time remaining fragmented and interdisciplinary. This makes it hard to keep up with state-of-the-art and to be at the forefront of research, as well as to assess the collective evidence in a particular area of business research. This is why the literature review as a research method is more relevant than ever. Traditional literature reviews often lack thoroughness and rigor and are conducted ad hoc, rather than following a specific methodology. Therefore, questions can be raised about the quality and trustworthiness of these types of reviews.

This paper discusses literature review as a methodology for conducting research and offers an overview of different types of reviews, as well as some guidelines to how to both conduct and evaluate a literature review paper. It also discusses common pitfalls and how to get literature reviews published. A literature review is an overview of the previously published works on a specific topic. The term can refer to a full scholarly paper or a section of a scholarly work such as a book, or an article. Either way, a literature review is supposed to provide the researcher/author and the audiences with a general image of the existing knowledge on the topic under question.

A good literature review can ensure that a proper research question has been asked and a proper theoretical framework and/or research methodology have been chosen. To be precise, a literature review serves to situate the current study within the body of the relevant literature and to provide context for the reader. In such case, the review usually precedes the methodology and results sections of the work. There are other examples of scoping reviews investigating research methodology, with perhaps the most pertinent examples being two recent scoping reviews of scoping review methods .

Both of these scoping reviews investigated how scoping reviews had been reported and conducted, with both advocating for a need for clear guidance to improve standardization of methods . Similarly, a scoping review investigating methodology was conducted by Tricco and colleagues30 on rapid review methods that have been evaluated, compared, used or described in the literature. A variety of rapid review approaches were identified with many instances of poor reporting identified. The authors called for prospective studies to compare results presented by rapid reviews versus systematic reviews.

Scoping reviews are often performed to examine and clarify definitions that are used in the literature. A scoping review by Schaink and colleagues27 was performed to investigate how the notion of "patient complexity" had been defined, classified, and understood in the existing literature. Articles were assessed to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria and the findings of included articles were grouped into five health dimensions. An overview of how complexity has been described was presented, including the varying definitions and interpretations of the term. The results of the scoping review enabled the authors to then develop a complexity framework or model to assist in defining and understanding patient complexity . Scoping reviews map key concepts and types of evidence available for complex research areas that have not been comprehensively and systematically reviewed before .

Due to the broad nature of perioperative and anesthesia research, a scoping review is needed to provide the foundation for future systematic reviews and KT to move evidence into practice . A scoping review is an ideal method for focusing on the breadth of coverage of the literature available on a topic, rather than assessing the quality or depth of the existing literature . This was in line with the objectives of the study, namely, to offer a preliminary investigation into the range and nature of existing evidence, to facilitate the formulation of future research studies on the topic . Though scoping reviews initially emerged in medical science, it is currently an acceptable technique in construction research . Scoping reviews conducted as precursors to systematic reviews may enable authors to identify the nature of a broad field of evidence so that ensuing reviews can be assured of locating adequate numbers of relevant studies for inclusion. They also enable the relevant outcomes and target group or population for example for a particular intervention to be identified.

This can have particular practical benefits for review teams undertaking reviews on less familiar topics and can assist the team to avoid undertaking an "empty" review . Scoping reviews of this kind may help reviewers to develop and confirm their a priori inclusion criteria and ensure that the questions to be posed by their subsequent systematic review are able to be answered by available, relevant evidence. In this way, systematic reviews are able to be underpinned by a preliminary and evidence-based scoping stage. Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence.

The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is appropriate. While systematic reviews have been the most common approach to synthesize the literature, other approaches have been recently considered to address questions that are broader in nature and more inclusive of different evidence types . The objectives of our scoping review were to map the current research and understand key concepts from the literature about LPA in people with advanced cancer. Another approach to evidence synthesis that has emerged recently is the production of evidence maps . The purpose of these evidence maps is similar to scoping reviews to identify and analyse gaps in the knowledge base . In fact, most evidence mapping articles cite seminal scoping review guidance for their methods .

The two approaches therefore have many similarities, with perhaps the most prominent difference being the production of a visual database or schematic (i.e. map) which assists the user in interpreting where evidence exists and where there are gaps . While knowledge synthesis methods abound in evidence-based practices, these methods are critiqued for their reliance on positivism. I then unpack the process of modifying three scoping review stages in keeping with an institutional ethnography method of inquiry, and in doing so, transform the scoping review into a critical knowledge synthesis tool. A systematic review should be carried out according to a specified methodological plan in order to minimise bias and omission of relevant studies. There would be a survey of databases or other types of register for the relevant literature using specified key words and subheadings and for a specific period.