Module-2-ScoReview_2024-audio

Welcome to module two of the Evidence analysis Center orientation tutorial. The title of this module is Evidence Analysis Center scoping reviews. Upon completion of module two, you will understand the definition of a scoping review. How a scoping review differs from a systematic review, the evidence analysis center process for conducting a scoping review and how the evidence analysis center uses the results of its scoping reviews. Let's get started. A scoping review is a form of Knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed at mapping key concepts types of evidence and gaps in research by systematically searching, selecting and synthesizing existing knowledge. Let's look at why the academy started conducting scoping reviews. Here are four top reasons to examine the extent range and nature of available research on a topic to summarize in the seminate research findings, to identify research gaps in the literature and to determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review. Scoping reviews are relatively new. This table highlights several differences between a scoping review and a systematic review. A scoping review starts with a broad research question to investigate what research has been done in the field, defining inclusion and exclusion criteria is fundamental for rigorous search. A major difference between these two forms of review is that a risk of bias assessment is not required for a scope and review. Also a synthesis of findings from individual studies and the generation of a summary of findings narrative and table is required for a systematic review scope and reviews can take 4 to 6 months to complete compared to a systematic review, which can take 12 to 16 months to complete. Although conducted for different purposes, scoping and systematic reviews but require rigorous and transparent methods to ensure that the results are trustworthy. We will now review the process followed by the Academy's Evidence Analysis Center in 2018. The evidence analysis center developed this framework as you can see conducting a scoping review is one of the first steps in the process. The result will determine if a systematic review is warranted. There are five steps in the evidence analysis sensor process to find a scope, collaborate with content advisors develop the search strategy, extract and map the data and finally collate and summarize the results. A scoping review requires teamwork and evidence analysis and scope and review. Project team is comprised of a project manager, lead analyst, content advisors who are experts in the topic area, a methodologies and a medical librarian. Let's discuss the process in more detail. A scope and review will include 2 to 3 topic experts who are responsible for developing the research question. They helped develop the search plan including identifying relevant search terms. The medical librarian conducts a comprehensive search using multiple databases and hand searches. It is not unusual for the search to produce 5000 or 10,000 hits. The project manager and lead analyst screen the title abstracts and articles. Finally, the project manager will map the extracted data and analyze the results. This scoping review is available on the evidence analysis library website. In this example, the topic list indicates when the scoping review is in progress. The review information is available within the project topic. This is an example from the celiac disease scoping review. Not a link to the scoping review information is located in the left navigation bar. Just a reminder that the most current information is located at the top. The scoping review helped focus the scope of the celiac disease guideline update. This is an example of a visual representation of a scoping review results. This is a bubble chart of original research published by year and topics for celiac disease scoping review. The bubble size is proportional to the number of original research studies published in the year and topic. This illustration is an example of a heat map representing the distribution of outcomes assessed in the included original intervention studies by study design and type of intervention. The red section represents the highest number of studies yellow represents the number of studies at around the 50th percentile green represents the lowest number of studies in the columns, et represents experimental trials and OS observational studies T is a total number of studies within each type of intervention. This is an example of an overview of included research studies for the nutritional genomic scoping review. This information was used to develop the search criteria for the systematic review. Here are examples of scope and review results which are published in the journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Once the scoping review is complete, the project manager will use the results to determine the need for a systematic review. The results will be used to focus the scope of the system, a review and to develop the PIC O questions. The results are promoted via articles in peer reviewed journals and at meeting presentations. This concludes module two. Please proceed to module three, the evidence analysis center systematic review. Thank you.