Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Introduction The realm of neurosurgery is currently witnessing a surge in primary research, underscoring the importance of adopting evidence-based approaches. Scoping reviews, as a type of evidence synthesis, offer a broad perspective and have become increasingly vital for managing the ever-expanding body of research in swiftly evolving fields. Recent research has indicated a rising prevalence of scoping reviews in healthcare literature. In this context, the concept of a ‘review of scoping reviews’ has emerged as a means to offer a higher level synthesis of insights. However, the field of neurosurgery appears to lack a comprehensive integration of scoping reviews. Therefore, the objective of this scoping review is to identify and evaluate the extent of scoping reviews within neurosurgery, pinpointing research gaps and methodological issues to enhance evidence-based practices in this dynamic discipline.
Methods The method framework of Arksey and O’Malley will be used to conduct the scoping review. A thorough literature search will be performed on Medline, Scopus and Web of Science to find eligible studies using the keywords related to neurosurgery, scoping review and its variants. Two reviewers will independently revise all of the full-text articles, extract data and evaluate the study extent. A narrative overview of the findings from included studies will be given.
Ethics and dissemination This review will involve secondary analysis of published literature, and therefore ethics approval is not required. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist will be used to guide translation of findings. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented in conferences via abstract and presentation.
- neurosurgery
- qualitative research
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
This original protocol will be used to explore current scoping reviews within neurosurgery, address their research gaps and methodological issues to enhance evidence-based practices in this dynamic discipline.
This review will use valid methodological frameworks and latest guidelines for scoping reviews.
This protocol will involve an exhaustive and iterative search strategy to provide both descriptive and analytical outcomes.
Following the guidelines of scoping reviews, quality appraisal of identified studies will not be evaluated in this study.
The restriction to English-only articles in the literature search may limit diverse perspectives from non-English publications.
Introduction
The activity of primary research, both in general and particularly in the field of neurosurgery, is experiencing a notable upsurge.1 2 With the increasing volume of primary research, the significance of evidence-based research becomes even more pronounced.3 4 Evidence synthesis, a useful approach in establishing evidence-based practices and research, enables researchers sift through and summarise the plethora of evidence from multiple primary research studies.5 6
There now exists an array of evidence synthesis types including narrative reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and scoping reviews, which are the common types to be encountered.7 8 Scholars or practitioners across various healthcare disciplines rely on reviews that identify relevant knowledge, appraise critical information and integrate findings from multiple sources of publications.3 9 This process enables generation of high-quality evidence that informs decisions and translates research findings into healthcare practice and policy outcomes.9
Systematic reviews have evolved into a top component of the evidence-based pyramid since their earliest establishment in the 1970s.6 10 These reviews are characterised by their meticulous and systematic methods, which are often laborious and time consuming.6 While recognising these challenges and concerning time is the essence, scoping reviews have emerged as a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis since the early 2000s.11 Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews offer a panoramic view of a particular research area, making them particularly suitable for rapidly evolving fields.6 7 Scoping reviews, which have distinct advantages, may address multidimensional research questions by encompassing a diverse coverage of evidence types.12 13 They are valuable for rapid assessment of knowledge with flexible methodology, enabling identification of research gaps.11 13
In a recent research, Tricco et al investigated the prevalence of scoping reviews within the healthcare literature and their quality of reporting.13 Their findings indicate a total of 494 scoping reviews conducted between 1999 and 2014 and highlight a growth in the publication of scoping reviews since 2012.13 This research endeavour involves reviewing and compiling evidence from multiple scoping reviews into a comprehensive overview of the research landscape in a specific field. Given the evolving nature of evidence synthesis and similarity to systematic review of systematic reviews, the concept of a ‘review of scoping reviews’ has gained recent recognition and development.7 14 Scoping reviews analysing other scoping reviews have been conducted, encompassing investigations confined to specific disciplines in medical education, rehabilitation, occupational therapy and nursing,15–18 and those that adopt an interdisciplinary approach,13 14 with the overarching objective of portraying the characteristics of these scoping reviews. Collectively, these reviews of scoping reviews aim to provide a higher level synthesis of insights presented in the individual scoping reviews.
Neurosurgery is a dynamic field at the forefront of diagnosing, treating and managing intricate neurological disorders and conditions.19 As medical knowledge continues to advance, it is imperative to remain updated with the latest research findings in order to enhance evidence-based practices and optimise patient outcomes.20 Given the large, complex and heterogenous nature of existing literature in neurosurgery, a scoping of scoping reviews may have been instrumental in mapping the literature on diverse topics, ranging from surgical techniques and outcome assessment to the management of specific neurological conditions.19
Scoping reviews are instrumental in providing comprehensive overviews of broad research topics by mapping existing literature. In line with this purpose, our study intends to delve into the methodological practices employed within scoping reviews in the field of neurosurgery. We will assess their prevalence and relevance in neurosurgical research and explore their evolution, identifying any gaps for improvement. The scoping review of scoping reviews offers an approach for identifying potential parameters for subsequent studies and the development of well-informed research questions.15–18 After conducting a preliminary search of Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Synthesis, it has been established that there is currently no ongoing study that offers a comprehensive integration of scoping reviews within the field of neurosurgery. Thus, the objective of this scoping review is to identify the extent, range and nature of scoping studies in neurosurgery. While identification of methodological shortcomings of reporting is frequently addressed in previous reviews of scoping reviews, one major aspect of highlighting the absence of evidence remains relatively under-represented among these reviews.13–18 21 22 This warrants a further exploration of whether scoping reviews in neurosurgery were adequately deployed in terms of their methodological quality as well as their distinct purposes of identifying research gaps.
Methods
This scoping review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.23 While the review protocol has not been registered, the methodology aligns with the frameworks proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and the recommendations by Levac et al.24 25 The review process comprises six iterative stages: (1) identifying research questions; (2) identifying studies; (3) study selection; (4) data extraction; (5) data analysis and presentation; and (6) consultation exercise.
Identifying research questions
What are the characteristics of scoping reviews in the field of neurosurgery?
What are the themes of scoping reviews regarding neurosurgery researches?
Identifying studies
In alignment with the research questions, a systemic search using keywords such as ‘neurosurgery’, ‘scoping review’, ‘evidence mapping’ and their variants will be conducted across three databases including Medline (PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science. The primary search phase will include studies featuring titles, abstracts or context that incorporate specified keywords. The review will encompass literature from January 2000 to the present, aligning with the rise of scoping reviews and facilitating the incorporation of the most recent research developments in the field. Additional studies will be incorporated subsequent to the review of reference lists from the initially included sources. A complete search strategy has been devised, employing text words found in relevant articles’ titles and abstracts, along with index terms used for article description (see online supplemental appendix 1). This search strategy will be customised for each database, encompassing all identified keywords and index terms for maximum coverage.
Supplemental material
Study selection
Following the initial search, all citations will be imported into EndNote V.20 (Clarivate Analytics, Pennsylvania, USA). Studies will be included if they meet all the inclusion criteria: (1) focus on neurosurgery; (2) scoping reviews; (3) written in English; (4) full-text, peer-reviewed journal article; and (5) published between 2000 and the present. Conferences, posters, abstracts, symposiums, editorials, comments and protocols will be excluded due to insufficient detail for analysis purposes. For selection of eligible studies, two reviewers will screen all citations through an iterative approach, seeking consensus in adhering to the specified inclusion criteria. Any discrepancies will be addressed through discussions to reconcile differences, with a third reviewer involved if needed to resolve disagreements. The screening process will be presented with a PRISMA flow diagram. A summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria is provided in table 1.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Data extraction
A data abstraction form will be developed first during this stage. To ensure adequate coverage within the abstraction form and consensus among reviewers, a pilot test will be conducted using several studies to evaluate its effectiveness. Details on the data extracted will capture information including participants (patients or healthcare professionals), publication demographics (year, journal name), contexts (countries of study, research setting), data analysis methods (content or thematic) and critical findings relevant to the review questions. Two reviewers will independently extract data from all included studies. The data will then be coded using an inductively developed thematic framework approach, encompassing various themes, of which fields or topics researched in neurosurgery serve as one potential example to be uncovered. Initially, the research team will analyse a subset of the full-text papers. Following this, the team will engage in discussions to identify emerging themes within the literature. Subsequently, a coding framework will be devised, and all literature will be coded accordingly based on this framework. Discrepancies among reviewers will be discussed, and the third reviewer will join the discussion if disagreements sustain. Data will be extracted from selected studies using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, USA).
Data analysis and presentation
We will gather and analyse data from the abstraction form. An analytical framework with a quantitative and thematic approach will be used to collate various themes that emerge from the existing data. Each article will be coded with a maximum of two themes during the coding analysis by ATLAS.ti, and the charting results will then be summarised using the same analytical tool. The coded data will be summarised by a descriptive numerical analysis. Results will be presented in tables, figures and narrative content to depict the whole picture of this scoping review. Percentages will be used to describe the nominal data.
Consultation exercise
A group of experts in neurosurgery, medical education and public health from Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals (Medical Education Research Centre) and the University of Sydney (Faculty of Medicine and Health) will be invited to provide consultations. Their expertise will offer valuable insights that complement our perspectives derived from literature searches. Any additional information provided by these experts will potentially guide adjustments in our data analysis. This consultation is pivotal because it encompasses a wide range of social and cultural perspectives stemming from stakeholders’ expertise and interests. These diverse perspectives serve to enhance and enrich the ensuing discussions.
Ethics and dissemination
This review will involve secondary analysis of published literature, and therefore ethics approval is not required. The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be used to guide translation of findings. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented in conferences via abstract and presentation.
Patient and public involvement
Patients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Contributors All authors have made substantial intellectual contributions to the development of this protocol and its revisions. The review question was developed by C-YL and further refined by C-HL. The review approach and design was conceptualised and developed by C-YL with advice from C-HL, H-YL and M-MC. C-YL and C-HL developed and tested search terms with revisions from H-YL and M-MC. C-YL and C-HL participated in drafting of the manuscript, followed by further iterations after collaborative input and appraisal from all authors. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Funding This work was supported by the National Science and Technology Council (ROC) under grant NSTC 111-2628-H-182-001 and the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan under grant CMRPG3L1531.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.