This article highlights critical similarities and differences in systematic reviews and scoping reviews, indicating their significance in minimizing bias and enhancing evidence synthesis.
The process of gathering, appraising, and synthesizing evidence takes many forms across a variety of disciplines with the shared goal of informing both day-to-day practice and research efforts. Scoping reviews and systematic reviews are prevalent in pediatrics and, when adhering to methodological standards, have the potential to answer questions using existing evidence while minimizing bias. This article highlights the key similar characteristics (transparency, comprehensive search, minimal bias, team-based) and differences (purpose, approach, question, data collection) and includes interactive quizzes with recommendations both for researchers seeking to conduct reviews and for clinicians appraising and applying publications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kysh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: