Thread by @Daniellep89

I have been told that scoping reviews (ScRs) are ‘lesser’ or ‘inferior’ to systematic reviews (SRs). Here is a thread on why that is a complete lie! /1 #JBImethodology #EBHC @JBIEBHC #ScRsAreAwesome

I remember in my PhD being told that my ScR wouldn’t even get published, because it is a ‘poor form’ of a SR.
We need to change this perception! Because it leads to the belief that ScRs should not be conducted in a rigorous and transparent manner- which it should be! /2

Let’s remember, ScRs and SRs are both forms of evidence synthesis. However, they have different purposes, and subsequently, questions, and in some areas, conduct differs /3

We know that if a ES wants to know if something is clinically effective, appropriate, meaningful or understand the experience of that intervention or concept, then a SR is the right approach. It is why we perform critical appraisal, and when necessary GRADE /4

However, if a reviewer is more interested in the identification of certain characteristics/ concepts in papers or studies, and in the mapping, reporting or discussion of these characteristics/ concepts, then a scoping review is the better choice. /5

Now because ScRs don’t perform critical appraisal (because it is not needed), they get a bad reputation that they are a poorer form of a SR. They are just doing their job and serving a different purpose to SRs!/7

Now we that we have established ScRs are not inferior to SRs, can we go back to more important arguments, like how pineapple has no place on pizza!