|
Systematic
|
To inform clinical practice.
|
Narrow and well-defined.
|
Explicit, predefined, sequential process rigorously followed.
|
As exhaustive as possible; using pre-defined search strategy.
|
Predefined, (PICOS criteria)
|
Quality of evidence assessed and reported.
|
Systematic, explicit methods to minimize bias.
|
Requires at least two reviewers for study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal.
|
|
Rapid
|
To inform service provision; caution when informing clinical practice.
|
Narrow and well-defined.
|
‘Trimmed down’ systematic review process; shortcuts to minimise resources used.
|
Reduced list of sources searched; using search tools that facilitate finding literature.
|
Predefined, (PICOS criteria).
|
Quality of evidence assessed and reported.
|
Shortcuts may introduce bias.
|
Does not require two reviewers for study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal.
|
|
Scoping
|
To map evidence, identify knowledge gaps, inform policy and practice.
|
Broader, initially parameters may not be clearly defined (e.g. type of intervention).
|
Iterative process, no formal requirement to include all steps.
|
Focus on comprehensiveness and breadth when defining search terms and sources. Can be altered at later stages.
|
Often developed post-hoc as reviewers become more familiar with available evidence.
|
No requirement to assess the quality of evidence.
|
Omitting/ altering steps may introduce bias.
|
Required number of reviewers not specified.
|
