Grant: Knowledge Synthesis Grant

<html> <body> <strong>Rationale</strong> <br> A knowledge synthesis summarizes, contextualises and integrates research findings from individual research studies within a larger body of knowledge on the topic. There are different types of knowledge syntheses including traditional systematic reviews as well as scoping reviews. Common to all of these is that their methods must be reproducible and transparent. Scoping reviews are exploratory projects that &lsquo;systematically map the literature available on a topic, identifying the key concepts, theories, sources of evidence, and gaps in research&rsquo;. They may occur in advance of a full systematic review to identify whether there is sufficient evidence to complete a full review and where insufficient exists and further primary research is needed. Over the last 10 years, the numbers of funded (such as by CIHR), completed,&nbsp;and published scoping reviews have substantially increased as these reviews are useful to clinicians, researchers, funders and policy makers. There is variability in the methods used to complete scoping reviews. Differing methods, when applied to the same question, might lead to differing and/or discordant results. To minimize this potential problem, it is important to clarify the methods&nbsp;for conducting&nbsp;scoping reviews. To date little work has been done in this area and our knowledge users (funders, journal editors, EQUATOR) have identified this as a critical issue. <br> <br> Once a&nbsp;synthesis has been conducted, it should be reported using&nbsp;the PRISMA checklist. Use of reporting checklists is advocated to increase the completeness and transparency of research methods so that readers can judge the validity and reliability of the results and interpret them appropriately. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative seeking to improve the quality of scientific publications by promoting transparent and accurate research&nbsp;reporting. This group has been responsible for the development of various reporting guidelines including PRISMA. EQUATOR maintains a comprehensive database of existing and in development, reporting guidelines. There is <strong>no</strong> checklist for scoping reviews and given that they are being conducted in increasing numbers, a checklist would be useful to enhance their reporting. <br> <br> <strong>Objectives:</strong> <br> We propose to complete a scoping review of methods for conducting and reporting scoping reviews; these results will be used to inform the development of a reporting checklist. Specifically, we will conduct a systematic search for:<br> <ol> <li>Scoping review methods across multidisciplinary fields to<br> <ol> <li>Characterize scoping review methods</li> <li>Compare and contrast methods for conducting scoping reviews, and</li> <li>Map the steps to conducting a scoping review</li> </ol> </li> <li>Guidelines for reporting scoping reviews</li> <li>Studies assessing the quality of scoping review reporting</li> </ol> <br> <strong>Methods</strong> <br> We have brought together a strong team including knowledge users such as funders and researchers who will use the results, and researchers with the appropriate methodological expertise to address this important question. To answer this question, we will complete a scoping review using the methods outlined by Arksey and O&rsquo;Malley. <br> <strong>Significance</strong> <br> To our knowledge, there is no other review of methods used for conducting and reporting scoping reviews.&nbsp; We will use the synthesis to create reporting checklists for completed scoping reviews and their protocols. Overall, we will improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews and enhance the ability of end users to use them in decision making and avoid waste.</body> </html>