Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions.
A systematic review may be undertaken to confirm or refute whether or not current practice is based on relevant evidence, to establish the quality of that evidence, and to address any uncertainty or variation in practice that may be occurring. Such variations in practice may be due to conflicting evidence and undertaking a systematic review should (hopefully) resolve such conflicts. Conducting a systematic review may also identify gaps, deficiencies, and trends in the current evidence and can help underpin and inform future research in the area. Systematic reviews can be used to produce statements to guide clinical decision-making, the delivery of care, as well as policy development [12]. Broadly, indications for systematic reviews are as follows [4]:
Types Of Research In Research Methodology Pdf Download
True to their name, scoping reviews are an ideal tool to determine the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature and studies available as well as an overview (broad or detailed) of its focus. Scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review [21]. They can report on the types of evidence that address and inform practice in the field and the way the research has been conducted.
Scoping reviews that seek to identify the types of evidence in a given field share similarities with evidence mapping activities as explained by Bragge and colleagues in a paper on conducting scoping research in broad topic areas [24]. Chambers and colleagues [25] conducted a scoping review in order to identify current knowledge translation resources (and any evaluations of them) that use, adapt and present findings from systematic reviews to suit the needs of policy makers. Following a comprehensive search across a range of databases, organizational websites and conference abstract repositories based upon predetermined inclusion criteria, the authors identified 20 knowledge translation resources which they classified into three different types (overviews, summaries and policy briefs) as well as seven published and unpublished evaluations. The authors concluded that evidence synthesists produce a range of resources to assist policy makers to transfer and utilize the findings of systematic reviews and that focussed summaries are the most common. Similarly, a scoping review was conducted by Challen and colleagues [26] in order to determine the types of available evidence identifying the source and quality of publications and grey literature for emergency planning. A comprehensive set of databases and websites were investigated and 1603 relevant sources of evidence were identified mainly addressing emergency planning and response with fewer sources concerned with hazard analysis, mitigation and capability assessment. Based on the results of the review, the authors concluded that while there is a large body of evidence in the field, issues with its generalizability and validity are as yet largely unknown and that the exact type and form of evidence that would be valuable to knowledge users in the field is not yet understood.
Scoping reviews can be useful tools to investigate the design and conduct of research on a particular topic. A scoping review by Callary and colleagues29 investigated the methodological design of studies assessing wear of a certain type of hip replacement (highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components) [29]. The aim of the scoping review was to survey the literature to determine how data pertinent to the measurement of hip replacement wear had been reported in primary studies and whether the methods were similar enough to allow for comparison across studies. The scoping review revealed that the methods to assess wear (radiostereometric analysis) varied significantly with many different approaches being employed amongst the investigators. The results of the scoping review led to the authors recommending enhanced standardization in measurements and methods for future research in this field [29].
There are other examples of scoping reviews investigating research methodology, with perhaps the most pertinent examples being two recent scoping reviews of scoping review methods [9, 10]. Both of these scoping reviews investigated how scoping reviews had been reported and conducted, with both advocating for a need for clear guidance to improve standardization of methods [9, 10]. Similarly, a scoping review investigating methodology was conducted by Tricco and colleagues30 on rapid review methods that have been evaluated, compared, used or described in the literature. A variety of rapid review approaches were identified with many instances of poor reporting identified. The authors called for prospective studies to compare results presented by rapid reviews versus systematic reviews.
Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Researchers may preference the conduct of a scoping review over a systematic review where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts, investigate research conduct, or to inform a systematic review. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
All the authors are members of the Joanna Briggs Institute, an evidence-based healthcare research institute which provides formal guidance regarding evidence synthesis, transfer and implementation. Zachary Munn is a member of the editorial board of this journal. The authors have no other competing interests to declare.
Be it science and technology, art and culture, media studies, geography, mathematics, and other subjects, research has always been the route towards finding the unknown. In the present gloomy circumstances when Coronavirus has shattered the world, a vast amount of research is being carried out to find vaccines for its treatment. In this blog, we will understand what are the various types of research design and their related components.
The research design helps a researcher to pursue their journey into the unknown but with a systematic approach by their side. The way an engineer or architect frames a design for a structure, likewise the researcher picks the design from various approaches in order to check which type of research to be carried out.
In Quantitative Research Design, a researcher examines the various variables while including numbers as well as statistics in a project to analyze its findings. The use of graphics, figures, pie charts is the main form of data collection measurement and meta-analysis (it is information about the data by the data).
In Descriptive Research Design, the scholar explains/describes the situation or case in depth in their research materials. This type of research design is purely on a theoretical basis where the individual collects data, analyses, prepares and then presents it in an understandable manner. It is the most generalised form of research design. To explore one or more variables, a descriptive design might employ a wide range of research approaches. Unlike in experimental research, the researcher does not control or change any of the variables in a descriptive research design; instead, he or she just observes and measures them. In other words, while qualitative research may also be utilised for descriptive reasons, a descriptive method of research design is typically regarded as a sort of quantitative research. To guarantee that the results are legitimate and dependable, the study design should be properly constructed. Here are some examples for the descriptive design of research type:
A correlational research design looks into correlations between variables without allowing the researcher to control or manipulate any of them. Correlational studies reveal the magnitude and/or direction of a link between two (or more) variables. Correlational studies or correlational study design might have either a positive, negative or zero.
Correlational research design is great for swiftly collecting data from natural settings. This allows you to apply your results to real-world circumstances in an externally legitimate manner. Correlational studies research is a viable choice in a few scenarios like:
Diagnostic research design is a type of research design that tries to investigate the underlying cause of a certain condition or phenomena. It can assist you in learning more about the elements that contribute to certain difficulties or challenges that your clients may be experiencing. This design typically consists of three research stages, which are as follows:
Explanatory research is a method established to explore phenomena that have not before been researched or adequately explained. Its primary goal is to notify us about where we may get a modest bit of information. With this strategy, the researcher obtains a broad notion and use research as a tool to direct them more quickly to concerns that may be addressed in the future. Its purpose is to discover the why and what of a subject under investigation. In short, it is a type of research design that is responsible for finding the why of the events through the establishment of cause-effect relationships. The most popular methods of explanatory research are: 2ff7e9595c
Comments