IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0323555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scoping review of evidence synthesis: Concepts, types and methods

Author

Listed:
  • Carla Andrea Trapé
  • Célia Maria Sivalli Campos
  • Cintia de Freitas Oliveira
  • João Gabriel Sanchez Tavares da Silva
  • Liza Yurie Teruya Uchimura
  • Mabel Fernandes Figueiró
  • Maritsa Carla de Bortoli
  • Sidney Marcel Domingues
  • Tatiana Yonekura

Abstract

Objectives: To systematically explore the concepts, types, and methodologies related to literature reviews and evidence synthesis. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using PubMed, Embase, Biblioteca Virtual da Saúde, grey literature, and websites of key international and national institutions, including the Cochrane Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute, Center for Reviews and Dissemination, Campbell Collaboration, and REBRATS, with searches completed through November 13, 2024. Studies were included if they identified or proposed theories and/or methodologies for evidence synthesis at international or national levels, with eligibility limited to studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese and no restrictions on publication year. Title and abstract screening was conducted independently by ten reviewers working in pairs, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts as needed, and full-text copies of potentially relevant articles were retrieved for further analysis. Results: The review included 99 studies employing a variety of evidence synthesis methods. A total of 71 terminologies for types of evidence synthesis were identified and grouped by conceptual and methodological similarities, resulting in 16 categories of evidence synthesis, each with clear differences in concepts and methods. Conclusions: The lack of standardization in defining and classifying review types challenges the scientific community by hindering study comparisons and appropriate methodology selection. Future research should explore the relationships between different review types and their outcomes, as well as the applicability of new methodologies across various fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Carla Andrea Trapé & Célia Maria Sivalli Campos & Cintia de Freitas Oliveira & João Gabriel Sanchez Tavares da Silva & Liza Yurie Teruya Uchimura & Mabel Fernandes Figueiró & Maritsa Carla de Bortoli , 2025. "Scoping review of evidence synthesis: Concepts, types and methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(5), pages 1-13, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0323555
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323555
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323555&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0323555?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0323555. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.