How are systematic and scoping reviews different as discussed in the chapter?

Systematic reviews and scoping reviews differ primarily in their objectives and methodologies. Systematic reviews focus on answering specific research questions about the effectiveness of interventions, while scoping reviews aim to explore the breadth of research on a topic and identify gaps in knowledge.

Systematic reviews are characterized by clearly articulated objectives, inclusion and exclusion criteria, comprehensive searches for relevant studies, quality appraisal of included studies, and synthesis of findings. They typically utilize a structured approach, often framed by a PICO statement, to assess the effectiveness of interventions. In contrast, scoping reviews are broader in scope and seek to map the existing literature on a topic, identifying gaps and new research opportunities without necessarily focusing on intervention effectiveness. Scoping reviews employ different frameworks, such as those identifying participants, concepts, and contexts, rather than a strict PICO format.