A brief introduction to

Scoping and Rapid Reviews

Hierarchy of reviews
• Systematic review – questions about intervention effectiveness
• Rapid review – when time is of the essence
• Scoping review – an overview of a broad field
“Gold”
standard of
Systematic
Reviews
What is a scoping review
• A form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research
question aimed at mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps
in research related to a defined area or field by systematically
searching, selecting, and synthesizing existing knowledge
• Broad question to investigate what has been done in a field
Scoping reviews by year 1997-2015, search conducted Dec 31, 2015 -
Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO
Reason for Scoping Review
• Determine the ability to conduct a systematic review
• Summarize and disseminate research findings
• Identify research gaps or general gaps in an area
• Make recommendations for the future research
• Map a body of literature with relevance to time, location (e.g. country or
context), source (e.g. peer reviewed or grey literature), and origin (e.g.
healthcare discipline or academic field)
Example of Scoping reviews done
• Using Technology to Deliver Mental Health Services to Children and Youth: A Scoping
Review
• J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 May
• Mental health literacy measures evaluating knowledge, attitudes and help-seeking: a
scoping review
• BMC Psychiatry Nov 2015
• Comorbidity and dementia: a scoping review of the literature
• BMC Medicine September 2014
• A systematic scoping review of psychological therapies for psychosis within acute
psychiatric in-patient settings
• British Journal of Psychiatry, August 2018
• A blind spot on the global mental health map: a scoping review of 25 years' development
of mental health care for people with severe mental illnesses in central and eastern
Europe
• The Lancet Psychiatry, May 08, 2017,
Broad overview on steps of Scoping review
Identify the Question

Identify relevant studies

including ongoing studies

Select relevant studies with

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Charting the Data

Collating, Summarizing and

reporting results
Scoping review VS Systematic Review
• A scoping review is not necessarily less work than a systematic review
• Articulate why a scoping review is the best methodology to answer your
research question
• Avoid framing the rationale in the negative, e.g., ‘we are doing a scoping
review because we are not assessing quality or because we are not doing a
meta-analysis’
• Has a scoping review already been done?
• Protocol search: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/
• Understand who the knowledge users are for the review
Rapid Reviews
What is a rapid review
• A rapid review (or rapid evidence assessment) is a variation of a
systematic review that balances time constraints with considerations
in bias.
 Why Rapid reviews
• Systematic Reviews often take TOO LONG!
• Affect policy decision

https://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/publications/alliancehpsr_rrguide_trainingslides.pdf
Rapid reviews balance rigour, relevance and timelines!!
Standards that can be altered in Rapid
reviews
• Scope: Limit in number of studies included
• Comprehensiveness: reduce search databases, date, language
• Rigor: Eliminate dual study selection
• Synthesis: limit quality assessment of studies

Standards can be assessed based on AMSTAR

Examples of rapid reviews
• Reducing health inequalities in priority public health conditions: using rapid
review to develop proposals for evidence-based policy
Journal of Public Health, December 2010
• Shared care in mental illness: A rapid review to inform implementation
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, Nov 2011
• Co-Morbidity, Mortality, Quality of Life and the Healthcare/Welfare/Social
Costs of Disordered Sleep: A Rapid Review
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health Nov 2016
• Patients With Co-Occurring Bipolar Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder: A Rapid Review of the Literature.
J Clin Psychiatry. 2017 May
 Issues with Rapid Review process
• 1 Reviewer performing study selection: Less transparency
• 1 Reviewer performing data extraction: Increased error
• Excluding grey literature: Excludes unpublished data/negative results
• Limiting the comprehensiveness may exclude significant studies
Different Approaches for Rapid reviews
 Variations in
` definitions
methods,
applicability

Challenges of
optimal
production
and use of
Rapid Review
Limited
resources
Poor
acceptability
 Distinctions between Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies
Scoping Review Rapid Review Systematic Review

Timeframe 12+ months 4-16 weeks 6/12 to 2 years

Question Broad Question Broader question Focused Question

Sources & Searches Comprehensive + research in progress Limited Comprehensive sources, explicit
strategies
Inclusion/Exclusion A priori with flexibility A priori & post hoc as appropriate A priori

Primary study design
Selection/extraction of data
Appraisal for bias & quality
Synthesis
Inferences
All publications Staged from SR to primary studies Typically RCT, occasional
observational studies
Independently in duplicate 1 reviewer Independently
None +/- Rigorous Rigorous
Narrative w graphical representation Narrative +/- quantitative Narrative +/- quantitative
More descriptive Limited Evidence based

Limitations No evaluation of quality/bias Prone to biases, RCT not always possible