The role of scoping reviews in guideline development
Files
(Published version)
Date
2024
Authors
Pollock, D.
Khalil, H.
Evans, C.
Godfrey, C.
Pieper, D.
Alexander, L.
Tricco, A.C.
McInerney, P.
Peters, M.D.
Klugar, M.
Editors
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Journal article
Citation
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2024; 169(111301):111301-1-111301-7
Statement of Responsibility
Danielle Kelly Pollock, Hanan Khalil, Catrin Evans, Christina Godfrey, Dawid Pieper, Lyndsay Alexander, Andrea C. Tricco, Patricia McInerney, Micah D.J. Peters, Miloslav Klugar, Maicon Falavigna, Airton Tetelbom Stein, Amir Qaseem, Erica Brand, ao de Moraes, Ashrita Saran, Sandrine Ding, Timothy Hugh Barker, Ivan D. Florez, Romy Menghao Jia, Zachary Munn
Conference Name
Abstract
What is new? Key findings: Scoping reviews are a popular form of evidence synthesis; however, their role within the guideline development process has been unclear.
What this adds to what is known? We identified five roles scoping reviews have within the guideline development process, these include: 1) to know what existing guidelines could be adopted, adapted or adoloped; 2) to understand the breadth of evidence that exists on a particular issue and help with prioritization of questions, the development of review questions or identify previous systematic reviews; 3) to identify contextual factors and information relevant for a recommendation; 4) to identify potential strategies for implementation and monitoring; and 5) evidence surveillance and living mapping approaches.
What is the implication and what should change now? We propose that scoping reviews can play an important supplementary role alongside systematic reviews within the guideline development process.
School/Discipline
Dissertation Note
Provenance
Description
Commentary
Access Status
Rights
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).