Recommendations for the extraction, analysis and presentation of results in scoping reviews

Prof Zachary Munn and Dr Danielle Pollock discuss recommendations for the extraction, analysis and presentation of results in scoping reviews
The article referred to in this video is: 'Recommendations for the extraction, analysis and presentation of results in scoping reviews.'
This paper is published in JBI Evidence Synthesis and is available at:
journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Full...
The JBI Scoping Review Network provides useful resources for download and links to scoping review methodology and publications.
Learn more about the network here: jbi.global/scoping-review-net...
00:00 - Intro
01:23 - Why the need for a paper on guidance for scoping reviews?
02:14 - Issues experienced with extracting and analysing data in scoping reviews
04:12 - Synthesis in scoping reviews
05:06 - Qualitative data in scoping reviews
07:41 - Is a scoping review the right approach for studying barriers and facilitators?
08:39 - Practical advice for data extraction in scoping reviews
11:36 - Practical advice for data analysis in scoping reviews
12:57 - Practical advice for presenting data in scoping reviews
14:03 - Summary
#JBIMethodology #jbiebhc

[@user-gu3zq1pb9o]

As a PhD candidate in the middle of a scoping review, this is both very timely and very helpful! Thank you so much!

[@JBIEBHC]

We're so glad to hear it! All the best with the scoping review.

[@nawrasbalkan6911]

My question is: if I got around 60 article of differrent sources, that covers all the questions of my thesis...can I simply map and categorize those articles into themes to show the dimensions of the issue on hand ( mine is about decision making) , where I am aiming to show what infulence the decision as in barriers and facilitators instead of putting all the 60 ones in a table of detailed extraction? I have already discussed in the reporting how all of these articles played a role in the decision making process as part of creating my literature review in the thesis and because I also wanted to show how existing literature is aligned with the validity and reliability of the tool chosen. Is that an acceptable approach for a PhD thesis? My supervisor keeps pushing for detailed analysis ( which now I know is not right for me, bcoz I have different sources and scarse ones too to adress each theme found since im trying to explore a third world country with inadequate studies emerging from them on the topic im studying). And also limiting my thesis to the 10 studies that are only peer reviewed with strong methodolgy, this is not adequate to cover the scope of decision making complexity.what are your recommendation for reporting a 60 result? I am currently reporting the number ,type of source and country origin in a table per theme...and opted to report extracted results in the form of narration in the literature review. which eventually..created for me a conceptual framework and aided in proving face and content validity for a tool that is adapted to cultural sensitivity by me. that tool was only used once before in a differrent ethnicity and the authors also opted for literature review to prove that the tool was developed in light of existing international literature, so I went that path while I additionally found that my included literature was aligned and similar in themes found in international literature. This is my motive and aim of going that way...but now doubt is created as supervisor argues the table and strength of evidence which can limit the understanding of the multiple dimensions of the Decision making process...help!

[@researcherguide]

thank you. I have a question;In screening and selection process of scoping review did we allowed to include systematic review in our scoring review study? or we should exclude systematic reviews?

[@JBIEBHC]

Ideally, the search strategy for a scoping review should aim to be as comprehensive as possible and feasible, given time and resource constraints to identify published and grey, or difficult to locate literature, from primary sources of evidence, and reviews. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis provides step-by-step guidance for conducting scoping reviews, and includes guidance for inclusion criteria and search strategy. For example: "For the purposes of a scoping review, the “source” of information can include any existing literature, e.g. primary research studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, letters, guidelines, websites, blogs, etc. Reviewers may wish to leave the source of information “open” to allow for the inclusion of any and all types of evidence. Otherwise, the reviewers may wish to impose limits on the types of sources they wish to include. This may be done on the basis of having some knowledge of the types of sources that would be most useful and appropriate for a particular topic." Any limitations in terms of the breadth and comprehensiveness of the search strategy should be detailed and justified.

[@researcherguide]

@@JBIEBHC Thank you

[@researcherguide]

And also, I try to join JBI Scoping Review Network, But I got failure massage. why? please guide me.

[@JBIEBHC]

Not sure why you couldn't sign up for news. Can you try again at: global.us15.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=b7a3429cdeb2d9125de40e149&id=3f5cb73e72