Blog
Comparing and Contrasting a Scoping and Systematic Literature Review
A literature review is a thorough overview of earlier studies on a subject. It examines academic books, journals, and other materials pertinent to a particular field. Its goal is to comprehend the current research and discussions relevant to a specific topic or area of study and to deliver that information in a written report. There are different types of literature reviews (e.g., narrative, critical, systematic and scoping literature reviews). The structure of a literature review may differ across domains and assignments; thus, the kind of literature review you write will depend on your field of study. This blog compares and contrasts a systematic and scoping literature review.
A systematic review refers to collecting other peoples' published work and studying them to answer your research question in a way quite different from a conventional literature review. It involves a systematic approach, i.e., following a scientifically approved guideline for conducting the systematic review. There are five major stages that you must consider in conducting a systematic review that scientific researchers and different institutions generally use. You can refer to our blog on 'how to perform a systematic review' to fully understand this type of literature review, the steps involved and how to carry out the steps.
It is an exploratory research study that carefully maps the literature on a subject by finding significant ideas, perspectives, and sources of proof that guide practice in the industry. Here, the potential reach of the research on a certain subject is evaluated. It aids in identifying research gaps. A scoping review aims to determine the body of literature that already exists on a particular research subject. Nonetheless, this literature review type needs to be comprehensive and "systematic-like". It frequently involves a procedure; the searching is methodical and reasonably comprehensive, and the techniques are well-documented. It could come before a thorough systematic evaluation. Additionally, it can highlight weak areas and elucidate topics in the literature. Ultimately, it strives to offer a summary or map of the available information regarding a specific subject. You can refer to our blog on How To Write A Scoping Literature Review to understand this literature review style thoroughly and how it is performed
They are illustrated as follows:
The differences between a systematic literature review and a scoping literature review are illustrated in the following Table:
Systematic Literature Review
Scoping Literature Review
Review groups carry it out with specialised knowledge that aims to locate and acquire worldwide evidence pertinent to a specific subject or questions, as well as to evaluate and synthesise the findings to guide practice, policy, and, occasionally, additional study.
It is the perfect tool for determining the breadth or depth of a body of literature on a particular subject and provides a precise indicator of the amount of literature and studies currently available in addition to an overview (wide or detailed) of their focus.
It employs specific, methodical techniques to minimise bias, leading to more trustworthy findings from which inferences and judgments can be made.
When it is not yet evident what additional, more specific concerns can be raised and beneficially addressed by a more accurate systematic review, it helps assess newly emerging evidence.
It adheres to a predetermined, systematic procedure that calls for stringent techniques to guarantee that the outcomes are accurate and useful to the intended audience.
It can provide information on the many evidence categories that address and guide field practice as well as the methodology used in the research.
It is frequently used to help generate reliable clinical guidelines. In reporting criteria for systematic reviews, it is encouraged to include implications for practice, which are a significant component of systematic reviews.
Since no bias assessment is made, a scoping study's significance for practice (from a policymaking or clinical perspective) is very different from those of a systematic review. There may not always be a need or motivation to make implications for practice, and even when there is, these implications may not always be beneficial in terms of offering specific clinical or policymaking recommendations.
A systematic review is probably the most appropriate course of action if the authors are uncertain about a certain procedure or method's viability, suitability, significance, or effectiveness.
A scoping review is preferable when authors do not always want to ask such straightforward or specific questions and are more interested in identifying specific attributes or notions in papers or studies and mapping, reporting, or discussing these features or concepts.
Systematic reviews attempt to address important clinical problems that are narrowly targeted, including how well a certain practice treats a given ailment. Hence, it typically formulates the study question using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) technique.
A scoping review answers issues with a wider "scope" and hence more liberal inclusion standards. The PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) mnemonic guides the question formulation.
Risk of Bias Assessment is done in a systematic review to establish its findings' transparency
A response to a particular clinical topic that has been adequately evaluated and meticulously synthesised is not the goal of a scoping review. As a result, the risk of bias evaluation of each study is typically not done in a scoping review.
Quantitative evidence is synthesised in a systematic review using statistical techniques like meta-analysis (for quantitative effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, or prevalence or incidence)
The results are synthesised as a summary of the individual research since a scoping review takes a more exploratory approach to study a particular topic.
It is done to find every piece of worldwide evidence that is currently accessible on a certain subject within the confines of the study's intended scope
The goal is to locate and map every piece of evidence that is accessible on a certain subject.
It is carried out to support or disprove the prevalent clinical practice.
It serves to clarify important terms and definitions.
It is carried out to address any inconsistencies between current practices.
It is carried out to examine how research on a certain topic is done.
It is done to identify new approaches based on the available evidence.
It is carried out before a systematic review.
It generates standards for establishing clinical policies and making decisions.
It is carried out to discover and clarify knowledge gaps in research.
The research question for a systematic review is narrow and extremely specialised; it must satisfy numerous precisely outlined criteria.
A scoping review's research question is always more general or broad.
We have blogs on ‘How to Perform a Systematic Review’ and How To Write A Scoping Literature Review. Feel free to check out these blogs to view typical examples of how to write these literature review styles.
No comments added
Your one-stop website for academic resources, tutoring, writing, editing, study abroad application, cv writing & proofreading needs.
