Comparison and analysis of the use of systematic review and scoping review in the area of patient care in Pharmacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i12.19915Keywords:
Scoping Review; Systematic review; Comparative study; Patient care; Pharmaceutical services.Abstract
This study aims to describe and compare two review methods - systematic and scoping - in addition to analyzing the use of these methods in studies in the area of patient care in pharmacy. The articles used to support this work were selected from the following databases: Google scholar, PubMed, and Scielo. The study was divided into two stages: 1) Description and comparison of two literature review methods: systematic review and scoping review; 2) Analysis and comparison of the use of scoping and systematic reviews in the area of patient care in Pharmacy. It was found that the methods for preparing the studied reviews follow a systematic and well-structured process, but they differ in terms of some methodological elements not observed in the scoping review, such as quality assessment of included studies and more advanced statistical analyses. The systematic review analyzed, unlike the scoping review, did not meet the criteria proposed for its preparation in the stages of selection and evaluation of the quality of studies. It is concluded that, although the reviews are aimed at different objectives, both present a careful methodology. Correctly associating the research question with the type of review is crucial for conducting the study.
References
Alshakrah, M. A., Steinke, D. T., & Lewis, P. J. (2019). Patient prioritization for pharmaceutical care in hospital: a systematic review of assessment tools. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 15(6), 767-779.
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
Aromataris, E. M. Z. E., & Munn, Z. (2020a). Chapter 1: JBI Systematic Reviews. Institute reviewer's manual.
Aromataris, E. M. Z. E., & Munn, Z. (2020b). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Institute reviewer's manual.
Barbosa, F.T., Lira, A.B., Neto, O.B., Santos, L.L., Santos, I.O., Barbosa, L.T., Ribeiro, M.V.M.R., & Sousa-Rodrigues, C.F. (2019). Tutorial para execução de revisões sistemáticas e metanálises com estudos de intervenção em anestesia. Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia, 69, 299-306.
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC medical research methodology, 9(1), 1-11.
Biruel, E. P., & Pinto, R. (2011). Bibliotecário um profissional a serviço da pesquisa. Anais do XXIV Congresso Brasileiro de Biblioteconomia, Documentação e Ciência da Informação. Maceió, Alagoas, Brasil.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P.T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. (1ª ed). Chichester, U.K: John Wiley & Sons.
Buehler, A.M., Figueiró, M.F., Cavalcanti, A.B., & Berwanger, O. (2012). Diretrizes Metodológicas: Elaboração de revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados. (1ª ed). Brasília: MS.
Buehler, A.M., Figueiró, M.F., Cavalcanti, A.B., & Berwanger, O. (2014). Diretrizes Metodológicas: Elaboração de revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos de acurácia diagnóstica. (1ª ed). Brasília: MS.
Comissão de Farmácia Comunitária do CRF-PR. (2015). Prática farmacêutica: saúde baseada em evidências. Recuperado em 10 dezembro, 2019, de https://crf-pr.org.br/site/noticia/visualizar/id/6318/Artigo---Pratica-farmaceutica-saude-baseada-em-evidencias
Cordeiro, A. M., Oliveira, G. M. D., Rentería, J. M., & Guimarães, C. A. (2007). Revisão sistemática: uma revisão narrativa. Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, 34, 428-431.
Cordeiro, L., & Soares, C. B. (2019). Revisão de escopo: potencialidades para a síntese de metodologias utilizadas em pesquisa primária qualitativa. Boletim do Instituto de Saúde - BIS, 20(2), 37-43.
Donato, H., & Donato, M. (2019). Etapas na Condução de uma Revisão Sistemática. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 32(3).
Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. (1ª ed). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Köche, J.C. (2011). Fundamentos de metodologia científica: teoria da ciência e iniciação à pesquisa. (29ª ed). Petrópolis: Vozes.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation science, 5(1), 1-9.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62(10), e1-e34.
Lopes, A. L. M., & Fracolli, L. A. (2008). Revisão sistemática de literatura e metassíntese qualitativa: considerações sobre sua aplicação na pesquisa em enfermagem. Texto & Contexto-Enfermagem, 17, 771-778.
Mancini, M. C., & Sampaio, R. F. (2006). Quando o objeto de estudo é a literatura: estudos de revisão. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 10(4).
Mendes, K. D. S., Silveira, R. C. D. C. P., & Galvão, C. M. (2008). Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto & contexto-enfermagem, 17, 758-764.
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 1-7.
Perera, R., & Heneghan, C. (2008). Interpreting meta-analysis in systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 13(3), 67-69.
Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3), 141-146.
Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: scoping reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer's manual.
Sampaio, R. F., & Mancini, M. C. (2007). Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 11, 83-89.
Sousa, M. D. C. V. B., Fernandes, B. D., Foppa, A. A., Almeida, P. H. R. F., Mendonça, S. D. A. M., & Chemello, C. (2020). Tools to prioritize outpatients for pharmaceutical service: A scoping review. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16(12), 1645-1657.
Stern, C., Jordan, Z., & McArthur, A. (2014). Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 114(4), 53-56.
Suzumura, E.A., Buehler, A.M., Pereira, S.B., Figueiró, M., Oliveira, C., Cavalcanti, A.B., & Berwanger, O. (2014). Diretrizes metodológicas: Elaboração de revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos observacionais comparativos sobre fatores de risco e prognóstico. (1ª ed). Brasília: MS.
Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC medical research methodology, 12(1), 1-8.
Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.D.J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E.A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M.G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C.M., Macdonald, M.T., Langlois, E.V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunçalp, Ö. & Straus, S.E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7), 467-473.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Tatiane Perusse Coelho; Cristiane de Paula Rezende; Maria do Carmo Vilas Boas Sousa; Carlos Eduardo de Oliveira Pereira; Simone de Araújo Medina Mendonça
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
