This link opens in a new window This link opens in a new windowThe Faculty of Health Sciences structured an evidence synthesis research capacity building project to bridge the gap between researchers and policymakers, improve research quality and productivity while reducing research waste. The project also focuses on stimulating inclusive, collaborative, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research within the Faculty.
The Faculty has developed a webpage for Evidence Synthesis Research (ESR) Methods that is available at https://www.up.ac.za/faculty-of-health-sciences-research/article/3056841/evidence-synthesis-research-esr-methods and link the following information to assist with Evidence Synthesis Research:
| Literature (Narrative) Review | Systematic Review | Scoping Review | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is it? | Synthesises the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerised databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts. | Attempts to identify, appraise and synthesise all empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Uses explicit, reproducible methods aimed at minimising bias, to produce reliable findings and inform decision making. | Aims to provide an overview or map of the available evidence, focusing on concepts, themes and types. Conducted according to similar rigorous and transparent methods as systematic reviews, but typically answers broad questions and does not require critical appraisal. |
| Why do it? | To set the scene for the research, often as part of a bigger project/thesis. | To address a clearly focused review question by finding the best available, relevant research studies and synthesising the results. | To capture breadth instead of depth of literature; identify gaps within the research area; occasionally used as a precursor to a systematic review. |
| Question | Does not attempt to locate all relevant literature in a systematic, reproducible way. Search strategy, if presented, may be described in broad terms. |
A peer reviewed protocol or plan is included. Clear objectives are identified. Comprehensive sources and explicit and reproducible search strategy. Use of a wide range of resources, including black and grey literature. Often a focus on randomised controlled trials. |
Often broad e.g. trying to find out what is already known about a topic. However, there is also scope to have a pre-conceived question to assess what literature is available around the subject. |
| Eligibility criteria | Not usually used or applied as database limits. | Eligibility criteria are clearly defined before the review is conducted. | Eligibility criteria are clearly defined before the review is conducted but may be revisited throughout the review. Due to the iterative nature of a scoping review, some changes may be necessary. |
| Selection / screening | Not specified, or ad hoc. | Criterion-based selection is uniformly applied, clear and explicit. | Often broad - may differ depending on resources found. Criterion-based selection is uniformly applied, clear and explicit. |
| Appraisal | Expected to demonstrate a critical approach to interpretation of research findings but not done in a systematic, reproducible manner. | Rigorous critical appraisal, and evaluation of study quality. | Variable - typically not done, or done in narrative form. |
| Synthesis | Often descriptive summary. | Clear summaries of studies based on high quality evidence. May include a meta-analysis. | Depends on the purpose, using a descriptive summary (tabulation is optional). |
| Inferences | Subjective, possibly evidence-based. | Evidence-based. | Evidence-based. |
Acknowledgements: Dr Maureen McEvoy, Dr Steven Milanese, Dr Saravana Kumar, and Dr Craig Phillips, University of South Australia.